Re: Subs?

On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 22:01, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Subs, co-routines and continuations are at a very limited, but functional
> state.
> 
> Basically you can create a PMC with a bytecode address or label
> and use the call/callco/callcc ops on it.
>

Subs seem to be broken right now. Here is a pasm file

  set_addr I0, MYSUB
  new P0, .Sub, I0
  call
  end

  MYSUB:
  print "this is the sub\n"
  ret

and the output from running the associated pbc file

  > ./parrot rough.pbc
  Segmentation fault

  > ./parrot -t rough.pbc
  PC=0; OP=65 (set_addr_i_ic); ARGS=(I0=0, 9)
  PC=3; OP=727 (new_p_ic_i); ARGS=(P0=0x81403c0, 9, I0=135578484)
  PC=7; OP=757 (call)

If I understand things correctly, the problem is that the address
argument (i.e. the last argument) to the new op is being ignored, and
sub->init is always set to 0. So the call op is returning 0 as the next
op for the interpreter (in core.ops):

  goto ADDRESS(sub->init); /* always 0 */

Is there a different pasm syntax I should be using for creating and
calling subs? I seem to remember some discussion about changing how
things are passed to constructors but I am not sure what the conclusion
was.

--
Jonathan Sillito

• Subs? by Dan Sugalski
• Re: Subs? by Melvin Smith
• [PATCH] add invoke vtable method by Jonathan Sillito
• Re: [PATCH] add invoke vtable method by Melvin Smith
• Re: [PATCH] add invoke vtable method by Simon Glover
• Re: Subs? by Jonathan Sillito
• Re: Subs? by Melvin Smith
• Re: [PATCH] Subs? by Jonathan Sillito
• Re: [PATCH] Subs? by Melvin Smith