What's the difference between 'v' and '' for NCI function parameters?
Here, for example, is the code for 'fv' and 'f':
static void
pcf_f_v(Interp *interpreter, PMC *self)
{
typedef float (*func_t)(void);
func_t pointer;
struct call_state st;
float return_data;
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 02:21:19 +0100
On Feb 4, 2006, at 22:04, Bob Rogers wrote:
[detailed plan]
>Sound good? Unless I've missed something, this seems like a win
> across the board . . .
Sounds very good.
Unfortunately, I may
On Feb 13, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:09:45PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
I agree with Chris on minimising the amount of places we do security
stuff
as far as is sensible. However, I would think that the interface for
doing
sandboxing style stuf
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:09:45PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> "Joshua Hoblitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think your slightly confusing OPs and PMCs. Presumably the *dir
> >functionality would be implemented as OP codes
> >
> I thought The Plan was to have all the I/O stuff done wit
# New Ticket Created by jerry gay
# Please include the string: [perl #38515]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38515 >
all PMCs (src/pmc/*.pmc) should be tested. the basic types, as defined
in PDD17 (docs/pdds
"Joshua Hoblitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think your slightly confusing OPs and PMCs. Presumably the *dir
functionality would be implemented as OP codes
I thought The Plan was to have all the I/O stuff done with PMCs rather than
ops in the end. There's no real benefit in having ops - the
On Feb 13, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:28:40AM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics ar
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:28:40AM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
>
> >It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
> >implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics are
> >portable.
>
> My outsider opinion is tha
From: "Robert via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:27:44 -0800
Passing to Ask to look at the bitcard issue.
Turns out this was a cookie problem; my browser was accepting cookies
from bitcard.org, but I wasn't aware that it was rejecting perl.org
cookies. I discovered th
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:56, Andy Dougherty via RT wrote:
> >
> > I too had seen this memory problem before on Solaris/SPARC, but I'm
> > pretty sure I saw it even when running t/past_node_5.pir directly.
> > However, trying again today, I'm happy to repo
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics are
portable.
My outsider opinion is that parrot should focus on exposing basic OS
functions (opendir, readdir, c
On 2/10/06, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, via RT jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ~ copyright text in each text file will be replaced with the new
> > keyword for expansion
> > ~ committers will be instructed on setting their environments to
> > understand this custom ke
12 matches
Mail list logo
