On Wednesday 02 July 2008 10:08:56 NotFound wrote:
> The lexinfo and addregistry pmc uses hash an pmc hash functions
> without access to his prototypes, giving warnings in c build and error
> in c++ build.
>
> This patch fixes the problem.
r28900 removed them, so I added a nice c
his prototypes, giving warnings in c build and error
in c++ build.
This patch fixes the problem.
--
Salu2
Index: src/pmc/addrregistry.pmc
===
--- src/pmc/addrregistry.pmc (revisión: 28958)
+++ src/pmc/addrregistry.pmc (copia de trab
# New Ticket Created by Allison Randal
# Please include the string: [perl #43249]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43249 >
To be removed from the 0.4.14 release (deprecation notice given in 0.4.13).
src/pmc
On Thursday 31 May 2007 07:19:11 Steve Peters wrote:
> Function prototypes in C work much better when they are living in a header
> file rather than in .c files. The attached patch below moves the
> prototypes generated in the src/ops/*.c files to the header files created
> from the
# New Ticket Created by Steve Peters
# Please include the string: [perl #43089]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43089 >
Function prototypes in C work much better when they are living in a header
file rat
On Oct 25, 2005, at 23:32, Nick Glencross wrote:
I was looking at callbacks the other evening. Am I right in thinking
that only two callback prototypes are supported, or have I missed a
trick there as well?
That's right. There are 2 callbacks (functions with 2 arguments only),
one wit
Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
On Oct 23, 2005, at 17:08, Nick Glencross (via RT) wrote:
Guys,
call_list.txt lists 'T' and 'L' as being prototypes for passing arrays
to nci functions, but no implementation exists in build_nativecall.pl.
This patch provides an implementa
On Oct 23, 2005, at 17:08, Nick Glencross (via RT) wrote:
Guys,
call_list.txt lists 'T' and 'L' as being prototypes for passing arrays
to nci functions, but no implementation exists in build_nativecall.pl.
This patch provides an implementation, as well as new tests.
I d
# New Ticket Created by Nick Glencross
# Please include the string: [perl #37512]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37512 >
Guys,
call_list.txt lists 'T' and 'L' as being prototypes
I couldn't resist start playing with exceptions. So I've put in some
opcodes, 2 new classes - no functionality yet.
Have fun,
leo
At 10:29 PM +0100 8/13/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
>I'd also like to be able to generate parrot code from within parrot
>and immediately execute it...
Working on the specs for that. Should be out soon...
--
Dan
--"it's lik
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, John Porter wrote:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> > I'd also like to be able to generate parrot code from within parrot
> > and immediately execute it...
>
> Something like that will be needed for eval() anyway, right?
Yes, like PDB_eval() may be...
Daniel Grunblatt.
Piers Cawley wrote:
> I'd also like to be able to generate parrot code from within parrot
> and immediately execute it...
Something like that will be needed for eval() anyway, right?
--
John Douglas Porter
On 13 Aug 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 06:56 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > >Here's a more interesting question: which parts of Parrot are
> > >enshrined, and which are prototypes, ready to b
At 11:10 PM -0400 8/12/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 06:56 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>>Here's a more interesting question: which parts of Parrot are enshrined,
>>and which are prototypes, ready to be thrown away? For instance, I'd
>>say much of lang
ut really bad masters.
>
>Here's a more interesting question: which parts of Parrot are enshrined,
>and which are prototypes, ready to be thrown away? For instance, I'd
>say much of languages/* is all proof-of-concept prototype stuff; imcc
>may not be. The assembler I'd cal
At 06:56 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>Here's a more interesting question: which parts of Parrot are enshrined,
>and which are prototypes, ready to be thrown away? For instance, I'd
>say much of languages/* is all proof-of-concept prototype stuff; imcc
>may not
On 12 Aug 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Grunblatt) writes:
> > Oh, no, I was talking about languages/parrot_compiler/. Sorry.
>
> Oh, I hadn't seen that. I can't work out what it is; it seems to be a
> device for generating "Couldn't find operator" errors. Is there any,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Grunblatt) writes:
> Oh, no, I was talking about languages/parrot_compiler/. Sorry.
Oh, I hadn't seen that. I can't work out what it is; it seems to be a
device for generating "Couldn't find operator" errors. Is there any,
dare I say it, documentation for it?
--
Going
On 12 Aug 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Grunblatt) writes:
> > The assembler is a bit outdated, it shouldn't be too difficult to bring it
> > up to date, I just don't have enough time latetly. But it did work fine
> > and is easy to extend it. Why do you think it should be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Grunblatt) writes:
> The assembler is a bit outdated, it shouldn't be too difficult to bring it
> up to date, I just don't have enough time latetly. But it did work fine
> and is easy to extend it. Why do you think it should be thrown away?
It's in Perl?
--
MISTAKES:
On 12 Aug 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Here's a more interesting question: which parts of Parrot are enshrined,
> and which are prototypes, ready to be thrown away? For instance, I'd
> say much of languages/* is all proof-of-concept prototype stuff; imcc
> may not be. Th
ch parts of Parrot are enshrined,
and which are prototypes, ready to be thrown away? For instance, I'd
say much of languages/* is all proof-of-concept prototype stuff; imcc
may not be. The assembler I'd call a prototype. The regex engine? The
GC? ...
--
10. The Earth quakes and the heavens
This quiets a few more gcc warnings. (I've already applied it.)
diff -r -u parrot-cvs/classes/pmc2c.pl parrot-andy/classes/pmc2c.pl
--- parrot-cvs/classes/pmc2c.pl Mon Jan 21 20:04:53 2002
+++ parrot-andy/classes/pmc2c.plTue Jan 22 11:43:10 2002
@@ -249,6 +249,9 @@
unless (exists $fla
At 02:33 PM 1/1/2002 -0500, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>I don't know if these functions might be obsolete, but here's a
>simple patch to add the missing prototypes if they are not.
Applied, thanks.
Dan
-
I don't know if these functions might be obsolete, but here's a
simple patch to add the missing prototypes if they are not.
Fixes this warning:
register.c:429: warning: no previous prototype for `Parrot_push_on_stack'
register.c:436: warning: no previous prototype for `Parro
26 matches
Mail list logo
