On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM, James Keenan via RT > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat Jun 21 07:16:56 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> [snip] >>> >>> (a) pull renum_op_map_file() out of Parrot::Ops2pm::Utils and into a >>> subclass -- the better to emphasize that it's not part of the regular >>> 'make' process; >>> >>> (b) pull the '--renum' option out of tools/build/ops2pm.pl; >>> >>> (c) replace tools/dev/ops_renum.mak with a pure Perl program which does >>> what 'tools/build/ops2pm.pl --renum' does now; and >>> >>> (d) only at this point determine whether we need to gussy this up as a >>> 'make' target. >>> >> >> >> Please review the patch attached, which represents the current state of >> development in the 'opsrenum' branch in the repository. The patch >> implements (a), (b) and (c) above. >> >> As for (d), I limited myself to establishing a 'renumberops' target in >> config/gen/makefiles/root.in. I then reconfigured and called 'make >> renumberops'. It renumbered the ops, because, after handling >> src/ops/core.ops, it handled the remaining .ops files (including >> experimental.ops but excluding obscure.opc) in alphabetical order. In >> contrast, the older tools/dev/ops_renum.mak for some reason had stm.ops >> out of alphabetical order. >> >> One thing I don't understand: In config/gen/makefiles/root.in, I see >> the following variable assignment: >> >> OPS_FILES = @ops@ $(GEN_OPSFILES) # line 455 >> >> There currently are no generated .ops files (I think): >> >> GEN_OPSFILES = # line 210 >> >> So OPS_FILES holds @[EMAIL PROTECTED] But I don't understand where @ops@ is >> defined/assigned to. >> >> This patch passes all existing tests, but since I never used >> tools/dev/ops_renum.mak myself, I can't guarantee that that covers all >> bases/cases. I would recommend that those who are concerned about this >> RT do a checkout of the 'opsrenum' branch, add/subtract some ops, and >> then see if both tools/dev/opsrenumber.pl and make renumberops DTRT. >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> kid51 >> > > First, thanks for tackling this. I'd honestly like to incorporate this > target into the normal build chain so we don't have to manually run it > anymore, but eliminating the custom make file is definitely a pre-req > for that. > > Second, two notes about the branch: > > In a fresh checkout, if I 'make renumberops' with no local > modifications, src/ops/ops.num changes. > If I rename the op store_lex to barf_lex, and run 'make renumberops', > the opcode barf_lex doesn't show up in src/ops/ops.num. (But, > store_lex vanishes)
Having just tried this in a different branch for a different reason, I found I had to manually add the opcodes to ops.num. Without checking the code, it seems like it doesn't scan for added opcode, merely deleted ones. Regards. > Regards. > > -- > Will "Coke" Coleda > -- Will "Coke" Coleda
