[perl #31292] [PATCH classes/unmanagedstruct.pmc] Don't Share Nested Structs Across Parents

# New Ticket Created by chromatic # Please include the string: [perl #31292] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31292 Hi there, This test case and patch demonstrates and fixes a problem where *Structs

Re: NCI and callback functions

Stephane Peiry wrote: g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here anyway I just dont see what could be wrong with the way parrot could be passing the user_data? gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO. Whats the difference between the way parrot calls this,

Re: NCI and callback functions

Leopold Toetsch wrote: Stephane Peiry wrote: g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO. I now tried calling g_cclosure_new_object() and g_signal_connect_closure() directly. Doesn't segfault anymore (at least,

Re: [perl #31114] [PATCH] Dynext functions

Mattia Barbon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure about this patch. It splits part of Parrot_load_lib into a Parrot_init_lib(Interp, load_func_ptr, init_func_ptr) So its applied finally. Thanks, leo

Re: [perl #31292] [PATCH classes/unmanagedstruct.pmc] Don't Share Nested Structs Across Parents

chromatic (via RT) wrote: Hi there, This test case and patch demonstrates and fixes a problem where *Structs sharing initializers that contain structs end up sharing a single nested *Struct. I'm not convinced the behavior is completely correct. It breaks one other test I'd rather not have the

Re: t/pmc/perlhash.t#20 failed

Luke Palmer wrote: And as I look at the code for that test: It looks bogus. Is a PerlHash supposed to accept an integer as a key? AFAIK yes. The test output to this one is: 4 Four is 0 Yep. See #31128 leo

[perl #31285] [PATCH] first step in implementing a SCons base build

# New Ticket Created by Matt Fowles # Please include the string: [perl #31285] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31285 All~ This patch is an early step in getting a scons based build system for

Re: NCI and callback functions

Leopold Toetsch wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: Stephane Peiry wrote: g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO. The whole idea behind callbacks is, that there is a userdata argument that get's passed through

Re: Compile op with return values

At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote: I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the regex language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which time it runs until it hits an Cend opcode. But

Re: [PATCH] Re: [perl #31128] Infinite loop in key_string

At 10:48 AM +0200 8/21/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Steve Fink wrote: ... For PerlHash, P0[foo;3] seems to be interpreted as an iterator access? I hope there's some other way of indicating that. Yep, KEY_integer_FLAG used to indicate, get me the next key and is used by the iterator. But as your

Re: Compile op with return values

Hmmm... Wouldn't a C compiler want to return a sub that invoked the main() (if there was one)? And, if there wasn't one, wouldn't the C compiler want to return a sub that raised an exception? Regards, -- Gregor Dan Sugalski wrote: At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote: I am experimenting

Re: Compile op with return values

At 6:41 AM -0700 8/23/04, Gregor N. Purdy wrote: Hmmm... Wouldn't a C compiler want to return a sub that invoked the main() (if there was one)? Nope, it shouldn't. main() would go into the symbol table and if you wanted to invoke it you'd yank it out and do so. And, if there wasn't one,

Re: GC/DOD API

At 10:35 PM +0200 8/20/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: As part of the DOD/GC rework, we need to have a clean, well-documented API for the garbage collector. Things were clean, though not documented, for the original DOD and things have gotten significantly messier since. First is

Character sorting and comparison

Comparison was the one thing left out of the charset API from earlier. So here's the API entry: INTVAL compare(STRING, STRING) Compares the two strings. Returns 1 if the left side is lexically greater, -1 if the right side is lexically greater, and 0 if they're the same. Currently this

[perl #31302] NCI GC issues

# New Ticket Created by Dan Sugalski # Please include the string: [perl #31302] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31302 Current CVS parrot looks to be losing track of NCI PMCs. Once a DOD run goes

Re: NCI and callback functions

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 12:14:51PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: Stephane Peiry wrote: g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO. [...] call is NULL, because of the same check,

NCI default changes for x86

Folks, A word of warning -- I've disabled the JIT's auto-generation of NCI function headers on x86 systems. This is partly in an attempt to track down problems I'm having with NCI calls segfaulting, and partly because I keep adding in new function definitions only to find that they don't work

Re: Compile op with return values

Dan Sugalski wrote: At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote: I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the regex language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which time it runs until it hits an

Re: NCI and callback functions

mh.. guess P is an actuall pointer to PMC, in that case forget that part.. :) Stephane On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:15:03PM +0200, Stephane Peiry wrote: [signatures question gone] *If* that is solved then the next problem is of course that by calling gtk_main() the GTK event loop is running.

Re: Compile op with return values

At 7:13 AM -0700 8/23/04, Mark A. Biggar wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote: I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the regex language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is that compilers will return a code object that gets

Need some opinions on base behavior

Leo's been nudging me to get the behaviours of the basic types defined, so I'm working on updating PDD 17 with them. The unary behavior of the types is reasonably straightforward. What I'm puzzling over right now is the binary behavior. It's the edge cases that are troublesome, of course --

Re: Need some opinions on base behavior

Dan~ I was originally going to say do them all or do the integer division/no overflow check option, but then something occurred to me. We already have I registers. If someone wants speed they should be using them anyway. If someone doesn't care about speed, but wants those semantics, their