chromatic wrote:
Classes are PMCs. Are there benefits to pushing them one step further and
making them Objects as well?
A PDD15 class is an object in so far as it's an instance of a PMC. A PMC
is a class, just written in C rather than PIR.
Jonathan
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jun 20, 8:59 pm
Subject: r19207 - in trunk: compilers/imcc config/gen/makefiles tools/
build
To: perl.cvs.parrot
Author: petdance
Date: Wed Jun 20 20:58:59 2007
New Revision: 19207
Modified:
trunk/compilers/imcc/imcparser.c
On Jun 21, 2007, at 8:57 AM, jerry gay wrote:
remember the days when we were C89 compliant? i do.
in fact, my compiler still lives in those days.
'inline' is a swear word.
Sorry 'bout that. I thought it was a leftover. Bad Andy for not
checking his assumptions, or even asking.
I updated
On Jun 21, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
Andy Lester wrote:
I guess I don't see the need to document a standard C behavior
with a macro.
If you had read all the way through the message, you would see that
the biggest benefit is the ability to hang debugging hooks off the
macro
We now have STRUCT_COPY(dest,src) and STRUCT_COPY_N(dest,src,n) for
all your struct-copying needs.
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On 6/21/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We now have STRUCT_COPY(dest,src) and STRUCT_COPY_N(dest,src,n) for
all your struct-copying needs.
Wait! Wait! It should be src, THEN dest!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jun 21, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 6/21/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We now have STRUCT_COPY(dest,src) and STRUCT_COPY_N(dest,src,n) for
all your struct-copying needs.
Wait! Wait! It should be src, THEN dest!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Are you a
On 6/21/07, Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait! Wait! It should be src, THEN dest!
Are you an AT&T guy or an Intel guy?
Neither! 68k assembly FTW!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have sent two PRs for pdb and I have a third one not yet commited.
http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=31159
http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=37287
My third patch is about http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=31163
(list breakpoints).
Ok, after the presentati
In the next few days I will be creating a number of new RT [TODO]
tickets -- 56, to be precise, one for each of Parrot's current
configuration steps. These RT tickets will track progress in writing
unit tests for the Perl 5 packages under the config/ directory which
govern the individual step
On Thursday 21 June 2007 12:05:35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Log:
> [perl6]:
> * Fix incorrect get_string() value in perl6bool.pmc (Infinoid++)
>
>
> Modified: trunk/languages/perl6/src/pmc/perl6bool.pmc
> ===
>=== --- trunk/l
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:38:15 -0700
chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Str", 3);
> > +return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Bool", 3);
> > return SUPER();
> > }
>
> That 3 looks like it should be 4.
Yep, fixed in r19238
pmichaud and I figured today that the segfaulting in 06-grammar.t is
caused by optimization, with the --optimize flag.
However, it's not all the fault of --optimize. I've been working on
valgrind, and there's some invalid memory accessing going on.
There's a dump following. The key is in
On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:44:38 Mark Glines wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:38:15 -0700
>
> chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Str", 3);
> > > +return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Bool", 3);
> > > return SUPER();
> > >
On Thursday 21 June 2007 22:19:42 Andy Lester wrote:
> pmichaud and I figured today that the segfaulting in 06-grammar.t is
> caused by optimization, with the --optimize flag.
>
> However, it's not all the fault of --optimize. I've been working on
> valgrind, and there's some invalid memory acces
15 matches
Mail list logo
