On Tuesday 20 February 2007 19:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Modified:
>trunk/src/stm/backend.c
>
> Log:
> [stm]: don't access a null pointer
>
> Modified: trunk/src/stm/backend.c
> ===
>=== --- trunk/src/stm/backend.c
On Saturday 17 February 2007 08:27, jerry gay wrote:
> as noted in my svn log at time of checkin, this is a failing test
> which exposes a bug in Parrot::Distribution. '*.t' files are only perl
> files if the shebang says they are, but Parrot::Distribution is
> classifying all '*.t' files as perl
On 20/02/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20/02/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20/02/07, Will Coleda via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After the application of this test, we have 1265 files that don't pass
muster as of 19FEB2007.
>
> This is related to the n
On Monday 19 February 2007 01:49, Joshua Isom wrote:
> The problem lies in io_buf.c, at line 562. My best guess is that it
> doesn't check that it hasn't gone past the end of the buffer. In some
> instances, parrot segfaults at this location, but it may take a while.
Tested in 17079, fixed in r
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 03:55, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> 2) does anybody already have a .plan or something in mind about it (so
> that I may either learn from what others have thought, or avoiding
> reinventing some wheel)?
It would be nice, though I don't know how feasable it is, to be able to p
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:44 AM, jerry gay wrote:
On 2/20/07, Aldo Calpini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no objection here! this is a long-desired feature, and is currently
unavailable. although i don't have a pocketpc to test on, i'll do my
best to help. for years, the dependence on perl 5's configur
On 20/02/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20/02/07, Will Coleda via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After the application of this test, we have 1265 files that don't pass muster
as of 19FEB2007.
This is related to the new test in t/distro/file_metadata.t right[1]?
In which case t
This behavior *is* defined, according to:
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/imcc/calling_conventions.html
And Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
First, PGE no longer uses the workaround, and relies on the
fact that :load works as documented in calling_conventions.html .
But I also think that with things li
On 2/20/07, Aldo Calpini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
back in 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/2004/09/msg25521.html
nowadays my effort of porting Parrot to the PocketPC platform, as you
may have suspected, force me to reopen the question.
there is, I
back in 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/2004/09/msg25521.html
nowadays my effort of porting Parrot to the PocketPC platform, as you
may have suspected, force me to reopen the question.
there is, I know, a lot of work to be done. and this will sure
hi,
attached a patch for the Lua grammar file for PGE (lua.pg).
fixing:
* reorganized some rules w.r.t. "do end"
* rule instead of "..."
* fixed table constructor rules (they now work correctly) -- stolen from
lua51.pg
regards,
kjs
Index: languages/lua/src/lua.pg
==
hi,
currently there are some deprecated ops, as listed in:
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/ops/var.html
they are not listed in DEPRECATED.pod
This is not the first time some ops are deprecated, and will probably
not be the last time before the 1.0 release.
Is it a good idea to add a check to th
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:05:30AM -0600, Joshua Isom wrote:
> Also, looking through the gcc manpage, one thing caught my eye about
> optimizing, with regards to CG and CGP. "Note: When compiling a
> program using computed gotos, a GCC extension, you may get better
> runtime performance if
On Feb 19, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
There's a benchmark of Ruby implementations at
http://www.antoniocangiano.com/articles/2007/02/19/ruby-
implementations-shootout-ruby-vs-yarv-vs-jruby-vs-gardens-point-ruby-
net-vs-rubinius-vs-cardinal
(or http://xrl.us/uy5m )
There's a c
14 matches
Mail list logo
