Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
On Thu Jun 27 07:26:37 2013, ruz@bestpractical.com wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Tony Cook <tony@develop-help.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 06:15:34PM -0700, Tony Cook via RT wrote: > > > What actually sets PL_sv_consts[SV_CONST_*] ? I assume the result of > > > newSVpv_share() here is leaking, causing the op/svleak.t test to fail. > > > > Actually, the SVs stored in PL_sv_consts[] would produce similar leaks > > until the tests were adjusted. > > > > Thanks for looking into this. I didn't look at your other set of comments, > but I suspect that leak tests started to fail since I switched to "on > demand" mode. For sure in this mode first call that uses some PL_sv_const > "leaks" one SV. It leaks it into PL_sv_consts array. > > Either test should do bogus run Yes, that’s the best solution. > to prefill all slots in the array or it can > ignore one SV. -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=118269Thread Previous