Re: cvs commit: parrot/t/src basic.t

2003-09-26 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:42 PM +0200 9/26/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A the point that this typedef was in, opcode_t hadn't been defined. Yes. But what makes me wonder is, why my gcc 2.95.2 compiled that alltogether. Maybe ccache messed it up. It's GCC. I expect it to behave od

Re: cvs commit: parrot/t/src basic.t

2003-09-26 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A the point that this typedef was in, opcode_t hadn't been defined. Yes. But what makes me wonder is, why my gcc 2.95.2 compiled that alltogether. Maybe ccache messed it up. > ... I > moved it, and installed an alternate version for non-core enbed includ

Re: cvs commit: parrot/t/src basic.t

2003-09-26 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 26 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > >> Index: interpreter.h > >> > >> +typedef opcode_t *(*native_func_t)(struct Parrot_Interp * interpreter, > >> + opcode_t * c

Re: cvs commit: parrot/t/src basic.t

2003-09-26 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> Index: interpreter.h >> >> +typedef opcode_t *(*native_func_t)(struct Parrot_Interp * interpreter, >> + opcode_t * cur_opcode, >> + opcode_t

Re: cvs commit: parrot/t/src basic.t

2003-09-26 Thread Dan Sugalski
On 26 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Index: interpreter.h > > +typedef opcode_t *(*native_func_t)(struct Parrot_Interp * interpreter, > + opcode_t * cur_opcode, > + opcode_t * start_code); > + This bit's made gcc