Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, we don't need it. We can go one less level of indirection than
> List, too, since we don't need the info it provides either, as the
> entries are guaranteed to be PMCs. We can hang a bare PMC buffer
> (well, OK, PArray, but they should be the same th
At 12:03 PM -0500 3/7/04, Simon Glover wrote:
Which leads me to ask a question that I've been pondering for a while
-- do we actually need to use a fullblown Array PMC to hold the object
meta-information and attributes? Couldn't we save a level of indirection
(and one PMC header per object) by
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:20 PM +0100 3/2/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
> >The following code results in a
> >clone() not implemented in class 'ParrotClass'
> >error:
> >
> >.sub _main
> > .local pmc a
> > .local pmc b
> > .local pmc c
> >
> > newclass a, "A"
> >
At 10:20 PM +0100 3/2/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
The following code results in a
clone() not implemented in class 'ParrotClass'
error:
.sub _main
.local pmc a
.local pmc b
.local pmc c
newclass a, "A"
subclass b, a, "B"
subclass c, b, "C"
end
.end
Steve was right -- the clone
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, I was thinking it was a single-level clone of data--basically a
> shallow copy. I'll go fix.
I still don't know, how deep vtable->clone should really go. Currently
its of course still borken: it clones recursive-deeply and fails on
self-referentials s
At 7:37 PM -0500 3/2/04, Simon Glover wrote:
I think I've figured out what's happening here. Stepping through the
code with gdb shows that the first subclassing works fine, but the second
blows up in Parrot_single_subclass at line 233:
temp_pmc =
VTABLE_clone(interpreter,
Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following code results in a
> clone() not implemented in class 'ParrotClass'
Can cou try to add this to parrotclass.pmc:
PMC* clone() {
return SELF;
}
> jens
leo
A PASM version of the test case is:
newclass P16, "A"
subclass P16, P16, "B"
subclass P16, P16, "C"
end
I think I've figured out what's happening here. Stepping through the
code with gdb shows that the first subclassing works fine, but the second
blows up in Parrot_single_subcla
The following code results in a
clone() not implemented in class 'ParrotClass'
error:
.sub _main
.local pmc a
.local pmc b
.local pmc c
newclass a, "A"
subclass b, a, "B"
subclass c, b, "C"
end
.end
jens
