On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Unfortunately, this causes different semantics for whether you are storing
> primitives or pointers (primitives copy, whereas pointers are shallow). Of
> course, one could argue that the previous one didn't work at all. :)
>
> Thoughts?
Well, it's certainly wrong (though very efficiently so!) -- it needs to
call string_copy for strings and vtable->clone for pmc's (attached).
Are hashes the only (non-packed) containers we'll have to worry about
holding things other than PMC's, or will arrays need this same snippet?
/s
Index: hash.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/hash.c,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -p -u -w -r1.12 hash.c
--- hash.c 3 Aug 2002 07:49:23 -0000 1.12
+++ hash.c 4 Aug 2002 07:38:20 -0000
@@ -436,8 +436,31 @@ hash_clone(struct Parrot_Interp * interp
for (i = 0; i < hash->num_buckets; i++) {
HASHBUCKET * b = table[i];
while (b) {
- /* XXX: does b->key need to be copied? */
- hash_put(interp, ret, b->key, &(b->value));
+ KEY_ATOM valtmp;
+ switch (b->value.type) {
+ case enum_key_undef:
+ case enum_key_int:
+ case enum_key_num:
+ valtmp = b->value;
+ break;
+
+ case enum_key_string:
+ valtmp.type = enum_key_string;
+ valtmp.val.string_val
+ = string_copy(interp, b->value.val.string_val);
+ break;
+
+ case enum_key_pmc:
+ valtmp.type = enum_key_pmc;
+ valtmp.val.pmc_val = b->value.val.pmc_val->vtable->clone(
+ interp, b->value.val.pmc_val);
+ break;
+
+ default:
+ internal_exception(-1, "hash corruption: type = %d\n",
+ b->value.type);
+ };
+ hash_put(interp, ret, b->key, &valtmp);
b = b->next;
}
}
