Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +op pop_pad(out PMC) {
> + $1 = new_pmc_header(interpreter);
> + stack_pop(interpreter, &interpreter->ctx.pad_stack,
> + &$1, STACK_ENTRY_PMC);
> goto NEXT();
Do we really need a new PMC header here? The PMC already must have one.
> +rotate_entries(Interp *interpreter, Stack_Chunk_t *stack, INTVAL num_entries)
> {
> Stack_Entry_t temp;
> - Intval i;
> - Intval depth = num_entries - 1;
> + INTVAL i;
> + INTVAL depth = num_entries - 1;
And these are typical cases, where a plain int or size_t seems more
appropriate, as Brian did show. But of course the whole source tree is
full of such (ab)usage of INTVALs.
leo
