I cringe at functions where the behavior is dependent on parms passed
in. In the case of Parrot_get_runtime_prefix, if you call it as
Parrot_get_runtime_prefix(&str) then str is populated, or if you call
Parrot_get_runtime_prefix(NULL) then you get a malloced string.
It should be split int
# New Ticket Created by Patrick R. Michaud
# Please include the string: [perl #43231]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43231 >
Defining a .sub with both :optional (positional) and :slurpy :named
parameters res
On Mon Feb 20 16:23:46 2006, jhoblitt at hawaii.edu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:03:59AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2006, at 23:44, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
> >
> > >What happened to the factorial PASM example? It seems to have
> > >disappeared and it hasn't re-
# New Ticket Created by GDR!
# Please include the string: [perl #43230]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43230 >
Hi,
I tried to subscribe to the Parrot list, however the address
supplied doesn't work ([EM
> "Paul" == Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Cygwin is building for me without the PATH setting as of
Paul> r19022.
Not for me, alas:
$ svn up -r19022
$ perl Makefile.PL
$ make all
...
Invoking Parrot to generate runtime/parrot/include/config.fpmc
Hi,
I'm new here so I'll say hello - I'm GDR!.
I was looking at the Parrot project recently and I'd like to
implement the VM in hardware. I'm not deeply into the project,
however, so I'd like to ask you if the Parrot bytecode is now stable
enough to begin hardware developement - I wouldn't li
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #43227]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43227 >
I've not really hacked much pir before so I thought instead of
committing this patch, I
Ron,
>> I simple changed the backward slashes to forward slashes, thus forward
>> slashes everywhere.
>
> Which was what *I* intended to do with my patch, but after staring at
> it long enough, I realised that's not what *it* was saying! :-)
> Ooops.
Oh, I see. Sorry I didn't get this right.
Paul Cochrane wrote:
>> Without the manual setting of PATH before building?
>
> With the manual PATH setting. There are several tickets for cygwin
> not building in RT; are they all related? Is there something like a
> hints file where the information about the PATH can be set so that
> cygwin b
