On 2/7/07, Jonathan Stowe <email@example.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 21:53 +0100, demerphq wrote: > > On 2/7/07, Jonathan Stowe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:11 +0000, email@example.com wrote: > > > > Nicholas Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > :would you all be so kind as to download this snapshot [...] > > > > > > > > All tests successful. > > > > u=4.72 s=1.25 cu=259.65 cs=26.95 scripts=959 tests=122092 > > > > make: Leaving directory `/src/package/lang/perl/perl-30145' > > > > make: Leaving directory `/src/package/lang/perl/perl-30145' > > > > > > > > I haven't built maint for a while, and I notice a number of compile-time > > > > warnings I don't recognise. (This may also be due to upgrading to gcc 4.1.x.) > > > > > > This fixes some of the ones I'm seeing. > > [...] > > > diff -ru perl-30145/mg.c perl-30145.new/mg.c > > > --- perl-30145/mg.c 2007-02-05 22:26:27.000000000 +0000 > > > +++ perl-30145.new/mg.c 2007-02-07 13:59:33.000000000 +0000 > > > @@ -503,8 +503,8 @@ > > > I32 paren = rx->lastparen; > > > > > > /* return the last filled */ > > > - while ( paren >= 0 && > > > - rx->startp[paren] == -1 || rx->endp[paren] == -1) > > > + while ( (paren >= 0 && > > > + rx->startp[paren] == -1) || rx->endp[paren] == -1) > > > paren--; > > > return (U32)paren; > > > } > > > > Im thinking that probably is wrong. Doesn't it mean that paren can go > > negative in the loop? > > > > And checking, in blead (not sure from what patch) we now have: > > > > while ( paren >= 0 > > && (rx->startp[paren] == -1 || rx->endp[paren] == -1) ) > > > > Hmm, I was wondering about that while I was doing it, I was led by the > way that the compiler appeared to be interpreting without the > parentheses as was suggested in the warning. The slightly worrying thing > is that it appears to pass the tests both ways :-( Well a test was added when the routine was recoded in http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/p/29312 But since the precedence issue wasnt fixed until http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/p/29325 I bet that test doesnt find the bug anyway. But as its fixed its sorta irrelevent except perhaps as an excuse to use Daves shiny new perlbrowse. :-) Cheers, Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"