Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. )

Older versions of deparse are accurate, as far as it goes. The problems in the node you referenced aren't Deparse's fault--it's not currently possible to turn an optree back into the source it came from. There's a not insignificant amount of stuff that's thrown away during the compile or peephole optimization phase, which makes things a bit tough.

Hey, at least I didn't recommend you rebuild perl with -DDEBUGGING and dig through the output of perl -Dt... :)

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. )

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re:x6: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. ) by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 25, 2002 at 19:52 UTC
rebuild perl with -DDEBUGGING Remarkably, the only reason im able to write this post (im at work) is because I decided to compile Perl with -DDEBGGING (but to add a debug switch to see whats happening with parsing and creating arguments in win32.c, yes i know -Dp does it, the yydebug was getting on my nerves...) and in a fit of stupidity deleted the win32/include directory :( So maybe once I've finished Ill take a look... Incidentally (re)learning c from perls source code is proving to be an interesting exercise. ;-) Yves / DeMerphq --- Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re:x6: for ( ; ; ) vs for ( .. )
by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 25, 2002 at 19:52 UTC

rebuild perl with -DDEBUGGING

Remarkably, the only reason im able to write this post (im at work) is because I decided to compile Perl with -DDEBGGING (but to add a debug switch to see whats happening with parsing and creating arguments in win32.c, yes i know -Dp does it, the yydebug was getting on my nerves...) and in a fit of stupidity deleted the win32/include directory :(

So maybe once I've finished Ill take a look...

Incidentally (re)learning c from perls source code is proving to be an interesting exercise. ;-)

Yves / DeMerphq
---
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.

[reply]