At 01:34 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
>This patch adds a few more macros for .ops files to use. In addition
>to the existing
Applied, thanks.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
At 11:17 PM 1/14/2002 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 02:14:08PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > So, I'm turning off the unused parameter warning for now to shut the .ops
> > file compiles up. After that point, all submitted patches must generate no
> > more warnings than were
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 02:14:08PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > So, I'm turning off the unused parameter warning for now to shut the .ops
> > file compiles up. After that point, all submitted patches must generate no
> > more warnings than were cu
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>warning: control reaches end of non-void function
>
> I'm not sure what to do about the former. The latter generally seem to
> arise from unimplemented methods. Accordingly, I've added a new
> exception, PMC_FN_NOT_IMPLEMENTED, to exception.h, and
At 04:39 PM 1/15/2002 +, Alex Gough wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> >warning: control reaches end of non-void function
> >
> > I'm not sure what to do about the former. The latter generally seem to
> > arise from unimplemented methods. Accordingly, I've added a new
>
At 06:33 PM 1/14/2002 -0500, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>Pointer arithmetic not quite right in the generated code. Also patches
>pbc2c.pl to work with rx.ops.
Applied, thanks.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Su
I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so caused me a
couple of problems (see attachment).
If these problems have already been solved, please ignore this message (and
excuse me butting in!)
Joe Yates
At 06:03 PM 1/15/2002 +0100, Joe Yates wrote:
>I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so caused me a
>couple of problems (see attachment).
Hmmm. No attachment was attached. :)
If you're using the 0.0.3 tarball, then there have been a lot of changes
since then. Check out th
Hey, looks like the attachment didn't make it, at least to my end.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
(Embedded image
I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so caused me a
couple of problems (see attachment).
If these problems have already been solved, please ignore this message (and
excuse me butting in!)
Joe Yates
1. Unzip
2. >perl Configure.pl
=
Joe Yates:
# I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so
# caused me a
# couple of problems (see attachment).
#
# If these problems have already been solved, please ignore
# this message (and
# excuse me butting in!)
All of these issues have been resolved since 0.0.3 was release
This patch add docs/running.pod, which lists the various executables
Parrot currently includes, examples of running them, and mentions of
where they fail to work. It's more of a cry for help than a useful
reference. :-) I've been having trouble recently when making changes
in figuring out whether
On Solaris 8, if I use a perl5.7.2+ compiled with gcc with all the default
options, and then use that perl to try to build parrot with all its
defaults, I get a fatal error:
gcc -I/usr/local/include -I/opt/gnu/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wstrict-pro
Ok, I've been paging through the hundreds of errors spewn out by gcc
with the new -Wkitchen_sink warnings. Some are pretty clear, but
many others raise questions I'm unsure how to answer.
For example, given the following structure in "parrot/rx.h"
(note that startindex is unsigned):
typedef
You could break it up into:
else if( rx->startindex == 0 ) {
goto OFFSET($2);
}
else {
--rx->startindex
}
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perl6 Internals" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: gcc warnings: rx->starti
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:06:17PM -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> You could break it up into:
>
> else if( rx->startindex == 0 ) {
> goto OFFSET($2);
> }
> else {
> --rx->startindex
> }
Or simply change the condition to 'if (rx->startindex-- == 0)'. But
the real question he's asking is: what i
Maybe set the check to :
if(rx->startindex-- == 0)
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
Some more minor fixes and cleanup to parrot's ability to read in pbc data
off of STDIN. Note that using an MSVC-compiled parrot doesn't work in
cygwin...it reads in less data than it should, both before and after this
patch. Only a gcc/cygwin-compiled parrot works in cygwin. I don't think this
is
Yesterday I posted a MSVC-warning -cleanup patch, which did some incorrect
casts to BOOLVAL (thanks Steve Fink). This patch adds a TO_BOOLVAL macro,
and uses it everywhere a cast is needed.
Mike Lambert
to_boolval.patch
Description: Binary data
Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
"signedness" of variables, etc. in one or two places to clear up a
few warnings and I'm wondering how many times there have been ripple
effects.
I'm very happy for
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:58:53PM -0500, Michel Lambert wrote:
> Some more minor fixes and cleanup to parrot's ability to read in pbc data
> off of STDIN. Note that using an MSVC-compiled parrot doesn't work in
> cygwin...it reads in less data than it should, both before and after this
> patch. O
Just realized that I've been forgetting the [PATCH] modifier, so I apologize
about that. :)
This patch adds the ability to do: 'make quicktest' instead of 'make test'.
This patch causes the assemble.pl'ed output to be cached, and only
regenerated-when necessary. This causes the .pbc and .pasm fil
Here are the warnings that remain in MSVC on level 4.
1) core.ops(2481) : warning C4047: 'return' : 'void ** ' differs in levels
of indirection from 'long *'
This occurs when compiling core_ops_prederef.c. run_native and run_compiled
both return a long*. This meshes well with core_ops.c's use of
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> To be clear, what Andy is doing is the right thing (asking what the
> intent of a piece of code is), but I doubt everyone does this and
> I'm sure Dan doesn't check every single line of every patch before
> eating each one, or if he d
Ok, I take that back, he is my hero too! I used to wonder the same about
Linus (Torvalds) when
I was on linux-kernel, how he could handle so many patches, hold down a job
AND find time
to write code of is own is beyond me. Not to mention family, food, fun.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovatio
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Maybe set the check to :
>
> if(rx->startindex-- == 0)
That still sets startindex to the equivalent of (unsigned) -1, which might
be something like 4294967295. I'm wondering whether that was the actual
intent. I suspect probably not. Perhaps Br
Andy Dougherty:
# On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
#
# > Maybe set the check to :
# >
# > if(rx->startindex-- == 0)
#
# That still sets startindex to the equivalent of (unsigned)
# -1, which might
# be something like 4294967295. I'm wondering whether that was
# the actual
# intent.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:39 PM 1/15/2002 +, Alex Gough wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
> >
> > >warning: control reaches end of non-void function
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what to do about the former. The latter generally seem to
> > > arise f
These are happening because although pmc2c.pl is writing out a header
file, it isn't putting an #include directive into the C code to tell
it to use the file - this is only happening for the superclasses of the
PMC (which is generally only default at the moment). Patch below fixes.
NB. Ther
On SPARC, gcc -Wcast-align gives 70+ warnings of the form
interpreter.c:69: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
For about half the warnings, the code in question is something of the
form:
code_start = (opcode_t *)interpreter->code->byte_code;
where interpreter->code->
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
> this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
> "signedness" of variables, etc. in one or two places to clear up a
> few warnings and I'm wonderi
At 10:12 PM 1/15/2002 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
> > this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
> > "signedness" of variables, etc. in one
32 matches
Mail list logo
