On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:39:26PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> I'll overlay queens.pasm with a newly generated one.
Works beautifully, thanks.
--
Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you
only have to climb it once.
Simon --
> > I'd still like to check in an updated queens.pasm, although, I'd be
> > happy to wait while this problem is fixed since there aren't other
> > tests of the rotate op.
>
> I think Jako is confused about what 'rotate' rotates - we now have a
> control stack and a generic stack. 'save'
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:08:45PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> I'd still like to check in an updated queens.pasm, although, I'd be
> happy to wait while this problem is fixed since there aren't other
> tests of the rotate op.
I think Jako is confused about what 'rotate' rotates - we now have
Alex --
> > The newly generated queens.pasm doesn't do rotate(). So, that's why
> > it succeeds, I guess. I notice that
> >
> > grep 'clone|restore|save|rotate' *.t
> >
> > doesn't find any matches in t/op. That makes it real easy for things
> > to drift.
>
> There are certainly save and resto
On 6 Dec 2001, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Dan --
> The newly generated queens.pasm doesn't do rotate(). So, that's why
> it succeeds, I guess. I notice that
>
> grep 'clone|restore|save|rotate' *.t
>
> doesn't find any matches in t/op. That makes it real easy for things
> to drift.
There are cer
Dan --
> > > Either way is fine with me. Let me know and I'll check in an updated
> > > version...
> >
> >Well, uh, neither, actually. :) I think the implementation of "rotate"
> >is broken, since the parameters to rotate_entries are all stuffed up.
> >I'm amazed this compiles:
> >
> >core_ops.c:
At 07:07 PM 12/6/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:47:54PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> > Either way is fine with me. Let me know and I'll check in an updated
> > version...
>
>Well, uh, neither, actually. :) I think the implementation of "rotate"
>is broken, since the
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:47:54PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Either way is fine with me. Let me know and I'll check in an updated
> version...
Well, uh, neither, actually. :) I think the implementation of "rotate"
is broken, since the parameters to rotate_entries are all stuffed up.
I'm ama
At 01:47 PM 12/6/2001 -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
>On Thu, 2001-12-06 at 13:32, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Well, it builds. The makefile needs serious abuse, the test harness just
> > flat doesn't work, and there are warnings about sloppy code all over, but
> > it builds and runs.
> >
> > Whups, ta
On Thu, 2001-12-06 at 13:32, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Well, it builds. The makefile needs serious abuse, the test harness just
> flat doesn't work, and there are warnings about sloppy code all over, but
> it builds and runs.
>
> Whups, take that back. queens.pbc ACCVIOs and dies. Damn.
Interestin
Well, it builds. The makefile needs serious abuse, the test harness just
flat doesn't work, and there are warnings about sloppy code all over, but
it builds and runs.
Whups, take that back. queens.pbc ACCVIOs and dies. Damn.
Dan
11 matches
Mail list logo
