[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] this code looks wrong to me
|
From: |
Jörg F . Wittenberger |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] this code looks wrong to me |
|
Date: |
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:05:54 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux armv7l; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.4.0 |
The attached patch does what I think it's the right thing to do. If
it's not obvious than beware: I did not yet test it.
Am 17.02.2016 um 11:43 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Brought me to read C_location_ref and that looks wrong:
>
> case C_U32_LOCATIVE:
> av2 = C_alloc(4);
> av2[ 0 ] = C_SCHEME_UNDEFINED;
> av2[ 1 ] = k;
> av2[ 2 ] = (C_word)(ptr - 1);
> av2[ 3 ] = C_fix(0);
> C_peek_unsigned_integer(3, av);
> case C_S32_LOCATIVE:
> av2 = C_alloc(4);
> av2[ 0 ] = C_SCHEME_UNDEFINED;
> av2[ 1 ] = k;
> av2[ 2 ] = (C_word)(ptr - 1);
> av2[ 3 ] = C_fix(0);
> C_peek_signed_integer(3, av);
>
> IMHO we don't need to allocate a fresh argvector here. Do we?
0001-reuse-argvectorinC_locative_ref.patch
Description: Text Data