[perl #115688] padrange optimization makes incorrect opcode assumptions

On Tue Nov 13 04:22:11 2012, davem wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 05:28:12PM +0100, Lukas Mai wrote:
> > But I've just realized your explanation of my (0 ? $x : $y) as my
> > $x; my ($y); isn't quite right:
> 
> I never said that. I said that
> 
>     my (0 ? $x : $y) = expr;
> 
> was *roughly* equivalent to 
> 
>     my ($x, $y);
>     ($y) = expr;
> 
> i.e. I was was trying to separate out the compile-time effect of allocating
> pad slots (allocated for both $x, $y, masking any outer $x or $y),
> verses the runtime effect, where only $y and not $x gets assigned to. Of
> course, the run-time effect of doing a SAVECLEARCV on $x gets skipped too.
> 


Dave, Father C, mauke:  Could we get an update on the status of this ticket?

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan

---
via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=115688

• [perl #115688] padrange optimization makes incorrect opcode assumptions by Father Chrysostomos via RT
• [perl #115688] padrange optimization makes incorrect opcode assumptions by James E Keenan via RT