Pike-devel

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

2 participants
3046 discussions

exposing a minimal C-API of Stdio.Buffer
by Arne Goedeke 23 Nov '15

23 Nov '15

I have written a MsgPack cmod. It operates directly on Stdio.Buffer internals. In order to make that work, I exposed a bit more of the internal API via modules/_Stdio/buffer.h. I would like to merge that into 8.1. Are there any objections or comments regarding a Stdio.Buffer C-API? The branch is arne/msgpack. Arne

2 3

Web.Api, Web.Auth examples?
by Peter Bortas ＠ Pike developers forum 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

I built the 8.0 doc and there doesn't seem to be any examples for the new REST and OAuth parts in the Web module recently checked in. Could someone familiar add a short example to the doc or post it here and all rework it for the doc? One exampled that sets up OAuth2 session with Google and does some basic information retrival from the same from service with Web.Api would probably be the most generic and future proof.

1 0

Header tests
by Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 17 Oct '15

17 Oct '15

Solved.

1 0

Header tests
by Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

I was looking into reducing the number of configure tests by removing checks for headers that are part of C89. However, if I remove all tests and ifdefs for errno.h Pike compiles and runs fine, but hangs when exiting. Any ideas as to why that is?

1 0

Remaining Pike 8.0 issue
by Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 15 Oct '15

15 Oct '15

It seems something got broken in Stdio.UDP recently. We are investigating... /grubba

3 4

Re: 9233989: ecx and edx were mixed up
by Chris Angelico 28 Sep '15

28 Sep '15

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) @ Pike (-) developers forum <10353(a)lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote: > I'm not sure what they stand for (well, they are listed in the x86 > processor specific output constraints in the gcc documentation). I > simply checked that the output string is correct if called as ia32.c > calls the code. Heh, that's one way of making sure it's right :) ChrisA

1 0

Re: 9233989: ecx and edx were mixed up
by Chris Angelico 28 Sep '15

28 Sep '15

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) @ Pike (-) developers forum <10353(a)lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote: > Well, I didn't actually change the order. But I see that the code in > cpulib outputs them differently depending on which assembler code is > used, which is bad of course. Fixing that should make ia32 work with > all compilers. Ah, I didn't notice that it varied according to which assembler is being used. What I saw was this: #ifdef CL_X86_ASM_STYLE __asm { mov eax, oper; mov edi, cpuid_ptr; cpuid; mov [edi], eax; mov [edi+4], ebx; mov [edi+8], edx; mov [edi+12], ecx; }; which definitely stashes them into memory in order EAX/EBX/EDX/ECX, which corresponds to the comment. I'm not familiar with the other syntax, which uses =a, =r, =c, =d, but since you switched those, I'm assuming they correspond to the Accumulator, Result??, Counter, and Data registers. Thanks! ChrisA

2 1

9233989: ecx and edx were mixed up
by Chris Angelico 28 Sep '15

28 Sep '15

For operation 0, the text string is indeed returned in [EAX]/EBX/EDX/ECX. However, the string is used only in src/code/ia32.c for its detection of AMD vs Intel, so it's entirely possible this change won't break anything anywhere else. Might merit a comment and some odd code in that one file, rather than warping other files around the oddity of that operation. Thoughts? ChrisA

2 1

Pike 8.0 release schedule
by H. William Welliver III 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

Hello all, The time has come for an official release of Pike 8.0! Because this is something that we all want but since we have trouble settling on a plan, it’s been decided that the release date for the first stable Pike 8.0 release will occur on Thursday, October 15. I will make a release candidate on October 8, and if it passes the testsuite on my limited set of test machines, I think we will be good to go. Please take a moment to run “make verify” on your system and report any problems not of your own making. This is a hard date, so if you’ve got something you’ve been putting off, or some buggy code you’ve been meaning to fix, my suggestion would be to make that a priority now. :) Also, please don’t commit the rewrite of the type system you’ve been dabbling with, or anything else major that hasn’t already been discussed and agreed to. This one month warning is a chance to get anything that needs final polish or documentation (hint, hint) sorted out. Also, If you’re feeling especially considerate, please take a moment to document your changes in the change log. This will save me a lot of time in the upcoming weeks. If you’ve got any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to drop me a note personally or to the list generally. Thanks in advance, Bill

2 2

The type of %
by Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

So I thought I would fix that Gmp.mpz(3)%2 has the type mixed. My first quick and dirty fix was to update the type of `% a bit by adding tFunc(tObjIs_GMP_MPZ tInt, tObjIs_GMP_MPZ) Yes, it ignores the int%mpz and mpz%mpz permutations, but it's a start. Not the right one apparently, as I got the following warning when trying it out on Crypto.Random. The code Gmp.mpz random(int top) { return Gmp.mpz(rnd_func( (int)ceil(Math.log2(top)) ), 256) % top; } generates Warning: Wong return type. Warning: Expected: { mpz = object(implements _static_modules.Gmp()->mpz) }. Warning: Got : object(is _static_modules.Gmp()->mpz) | mixed. Why is there a "| mixed" in this type? Is this at all the correct approach? Can we get nicer names than _static_modules.Gmp()->mpz?

2 4

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel