"Michel J Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A second approach is to throw out this weird transmogrifying class stuff,
> and just construct a new PMC of the appropriate type to put into the
> destination register. Why would we *ever* care what's in the destination
> register, since it never ge
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>
> This is a not-yet-suitable for applying patch that removes the dependency on an
> external assembler and disassembler for Just-In-Time compiler support. All
> assembly is done at run-time via macros. This is sufficient to allow some
> flexibility in
I'm stuck at a fork in terms of how to fix this particular GC problem.
First, I changed all the direct vtable changes to use morph(). Morph does
a: destroy(), vtable change, and an init(). This is required because some
PMCs require GC-related initiailization, such as PerlStrings, which need
to st
For a tinderbox target, it is possible to have tinderclient run the tinder
and tindertest targets and then run the normal ones. If either fail, it will
give an error. That way we can ensure that nothing slips through. However,
this will double the tinderbox cycle time and use more resources on the
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 07:44:11AM -0500, Michel J Lambert wrote:
> I'm sorry, this new weapon is going to give a quick advantage to the fools
> side, but luckily, should help the fool-proofers in the long run.
Which reminds me -- Dan, I hereby nominate Mike for commit access. :-)
Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ouch. They actually expect you to be able to do anything useful without
> the other headers?
> It might actually be easier to just implement the headers ourselves on
> platforms that don't have them...
The provisions for free-standing implementations in
Applied :)
As far as a tinderbox-specific target, i'm all for it. I was thinking that
it might be better to have it be a perl script, since we could then have it
take care of doing the "clean" and rebuild the makefile appropriately.
I can take a stab at it tomorrow, if nobody else does.
--Jos
I'm sorry, this new weapon is going to give a quick advantage to the fools
side, but luckily, should help the fool-proofers in the long run.
Below patch should be safe to apply, as it does nothing. Turn on GC_DEBUG
if you want to see the hell that ensues. I'm working on a patch to fix the
issues
