On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:28:01AM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:06:28AM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > > > Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > > > I agree with the sentiment, but think it would be worth it (perhaps in > > > > conjuction with a short warning in perlfunc/exists that exists on @_ > > > > or @DB::args may not work). > > > > > > > > The only complete fix I see would be to also make av_reify replace all > > > > PL_sv_undefs with new sv's, something like (untested): > > > > > > That's what Dave was suggesting with using an SV placeholder. > > > > Unless I'm just being very dense, that's not at all the same. > > Or I haven't fully understood what Dave suggested... > > He wrote : > > Can't really be fixed short of using some other static SV to mark unused > > elements (cf PL_sv_placeholder), but personally I think that's throwing > > good money after bad. > which I thought was in the context of array reification. The difference > with your second patch is that you're creating new undefined SVs...
Ah, I see the connection now. The problem with a new immortal is that it has to be checked for in addition to PL_sv_undef in av_fetch and I think av_store, which would have a detrimental effect (albeit very slight) on all array operations. My suggestion just involves a memory cost for reifying @_ when undefs are passed.
