# New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol
# Please include the string: [perl #60940]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60940 >
On win32, XP, the test t/dynpmc/foo.t fails, wiht the output:
t/dynpmc/dynlexpad..
Justin has left a new comment on your post "Memory Management in PIRC":
APR is the Apache Runtime library. It's centered around the idea that
all allocations are done for some specific request/task and that most
(or even all) of that memory will be needed for the duration of that
request/task.
In
On win32, XP, I get the following test failure, with output:
t/pmc/eval..ok 1/17
t/pmc/eval..NOK 10/17# Failed test
'eval.get_string - same file'
# at t/pmc/eval.t line 319.
# Exited with error code: 1
# Received:
# hello from foo
Author: kjs
Date: Sun Nov 30 08:08:13 2008
New Revision: 33372
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd26_ast.pod
Log:
[pdd26] add pasttype descriptions for 'chain' and 'return'.
resolving RT#48705.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd26_ast.pod
=
Justin has left a new comment on your post "Memory Management in PIRC":
That's one way to do it. Why not the APR way of things? Creating memory
pools in which memory can only be allocated (not freed) and after each
step is finished you simpy reclaim the entire pool (no fragmentation,
no pointer tr
kjs has left a new comment on your post "Memory Management in PIRC":
Justin, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure what "APR" way
of things is.. Creating memory pools and reclaiming the pool after each
step: all allocated memory is needed till the end of the compilation,
so there's no dif
Author: kjs
Date: Sun Nov 30 06:20:05 2008
New Revision: 33363
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd23_exceptions.pod
Log:
[pdd23] woops. A head2 should have been a head3.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd23_exceptions.pod
==
---
Author: kjs
Date: Sun Nov 30 06:18:44 2008
New Revision: 33362
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd19_pir.pod
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd23_exceptions.pod
Log:
[pdd] remove the part about resuming an exception from pdd19: it's not a part
of the PIR language. Also, it was also written in better detail in
On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:16 PM, chromatic wrote:
If you're continuing to bisect to the offending patch, you don't
need to
update the ticket with ranges is useful. If you can't narrow it
down further
that's one thing, but if you haven't hit the limit of what you can
find, I
don't need th
