Pike-devel

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

3041 discussions

feedback request: ZIP archives on module path
by H. William Welliver III 05 Dec '14

05 Dec '14

I’ve committed a new feature to 8.1 that I’d like to get feedback on. The feature extends master()->add_module_path() to allow the path to point to a ZIP archive which will be searched as if it were a regular module directory. Things I’d especially like feedback on: 1. Is the current API acceptable (the simplest form is built into add_module_path(), more complex use cases may be accounted for using lower level APIs) 2. A minor overhead exists (a mapping lookup on the path prefix) which may impact performance for non-archive path searches. Since classes are cached after lookup, is this overhead a concern? Quick benchmarking doesn’t seem to indicate a significant performance change, however I’d like to hear thoughts from users whose use case may vary from my own. 3. Does it make sense to extend this feature to add_*_path? My sense is yes, but wanted to check. Sample Usage: 1. Create a zip file with the following structure: modules/ modules/Some.pmod/ … etc 2. Run pike -M path/to/some.zip 3. Access Some.whatever… Bill

1 0

xenofarm?
by Stephen R. van den Berg 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Xenofarm seems to have been out of order since a while, correct? -- Stephen.

6 7

Autodoc 8.1 complains about removed namespaces
by Stephen R. van den Berg 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

$ make doc Failed to move 7.6:: Failed to move 7.4:: When trying to fix that, I get lost in the autodoc/xml code. Anyone? -- Stephen.

6 10

gdb_backtraces()
by Mirar ＠ Pike developers forum 21 Nov '14

21 Nov '14

(gdb) p *Pike_interpreter_pointer Cannot access memory at address 0x0 is kind of suspicious, I take it?

1 1

Re: Autodoc 8.1 complains about removed namespaces
by Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

> >Well, I merely tied up the loose ends that were a natural result of >all compat support prior to 7.8 being ripped out already (not by me). >I.e. the functionality that *I* removed was already dead-in-the-water because >there was no way to call it anymore. > No, you could still call them. I kept them in because just because it was compatibility with old data, not old code.

3 2

crash
by Arne Goedeke 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

I attached a simple script which crashes pike. The code has cyclic dependencies within the same pmod, and ends up having parent_identifier=-1 in find_external_context. When compiled with debug, running pike -M lib test.pike results in the following backtrace. /home/el/code/rw/pike/src/interpret.c:778: Fatal error: Identifier out of range, loc->parent_identifer=-1! Backtrace at time of fatal: lib/Test.pmod/FOO.pmod:8: Test.A()->__INIT() lib/Test.pmod/module.pmod:5: Test.A()->__INIT() test.pike:3: /main()->main(1,({"/home/el/code/rw/pike_bugs/1/test.pike"})) Aborted Arne

1 0

cannot find input file: `wnotify_config.h.in'
by Stephen R. van den Berg 04 Nov '14

04 Nov '14

Compiling 8.1 on i386 stops at: configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating make_variables config.status: creating Makefile config.status: error: cannot find input file: `wnotify_config.h.in' Any ideas? -- Stephen.

3 5

Re: Proposal: Enhance Process.run() to accept functions for stdout/stderr
by Chris Angelico 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Peter Bortas @ Pike developers forum <10353(a)lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote: > I'd prefer you didn't. Supposed to be stable and all... No probs. All sorted then. ChrisA

2 1

Re: Proposal: Enhance Process.run() to accept functions for stdout/stderr
by Chris Angelico 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Per Hedbor () @ Pike (-) developers forum <10353(a)lyskom.lysator.liu.se> wrote: >>Any views on this feature? (I just rebased the branch on top of >>current 8.1, no other changes.) Fears of breakage? Interest in using >>it? Anything? > > It looks good to me. And, yes, it is worth adding since it is > something you often want. Cool. Merged into 8.1. Should I put it into 8.0 as well? ChrisA

2 1

Proposal: Enhance Process.run() to accept functions for stdout/stderr
by Chris Angelico 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

I periodically find myself needing something similar to Process.run(), but processing intermediate output. Example: https://github.com/Rosuav/FrozenOST/blob/master/build.pike#L114 It needs to take whatever's sent to stderr, turn all \n into \r, and send it on to the real stdout. (Yes, it sends stderr to stdout.) I usually end up lifting the code of Process.run() and making a cut-down version (as I don't need all its features); but the obvious alternative would be to have Process.run itself provide this facility. The code is now at branch rosuav/process_run_with_func; the equivalent to my above code would be simply: Process.run(({"sox","-S","-m","-v",".5"})+tracklist/1*({"-v",".5"})+({soundtrack}), (["stderr":lambda(string data) {write(replace(data,"\n","\r"));}])); Is this a feature worth adding? ChrisA

2 2

Jump to page:

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