Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would remove the rxstack, but I didn't want to break the closest
> thing we have to a regex engine until I or someone else managed to
> release a different working implementation. The particular technique
> of using a single stack tied directly the interpr
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:09:34PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:43 PM +0200 6/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >[ stack implementations ]
> >
> >Well... we only really have three.
> >
> >Control, User & Pad have the same stack engine. The register backing
> >stacks and
At 11:43 PM +0200 6/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ stack implementations ]
Well... we only really have three.
Control, User & Pad have the same stack engine. The register backing
stacks and rxstack sum up to 5 more.
Pads shouldn't really be stacks, they should be plain linked
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ stack implementations ]
Well... we only really have three.
Control, User & Pad have the same stack engine. The register backing
stacks and rxstack sum up to 5 more.
... The I/P/N/S stacks are all the
same, the only reason they've got different code is because the elements
At 11:21 PM +0200 6/26/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 8:26 AM +0200 6/25/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The first question is:
Do we need such a limit check on the register backing stacks too?
If we're going to put limits in, yes.
If we want some secure execut
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:26 AM +0200 6/25/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>The first question is:
>>Do we need such a limit check on the register backing stacks too?
> If we're going to put limits in, yes.
If we want some secure executions modes too, we will need this anyway.
T
At 8:26 AM +0200 6/25/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I've added a check for too deeply nested stacks now.
I probably ought to get started on the stack-chunk-as-PMC patch for
garbage collection of stack frames. :)
The first que
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I've added a check for too deeply nested stacks now.
I probably ought to get started on the stack-chunk-as-PMC patch for
garbage collection of stack frames. :)
The first question is:
Do we need such a limit check on the regi
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Clinton A. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Found the bug. Mostly MEA CULPA. A thousand pardons to the good
Parrot folk.
When calling a sub like this:
.arg 0
call _foo
It's probably a good thing to take the 0 off the s
Clinton A. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Found the bug. Mostly MEA CULPA. A thousand pardons to the good Parrot folk.
> When calling a sub like this:
> .arg 0
> call _foo
> It's probably a good thing to take the 0 off the stack at some
> point.
Thanks again for your b
At 09:22 PM 6/23/2003 +, you wrote:
# New Ticket Created by "Clinton A. Pierce"
# Please include the string: [perl #22767]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22767 >
I apologize for the length of this example.
# New Ticket Created by "Clinton A. Pierce"
# Please include the string: [perl #22767]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22767 >
I apologize for the length of this example. I've spent a goodly part of
this af
12 matches
Mail list logo
