Re: suspicious pointer/integer coersion

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking further ... we already do this implicitly for prodesc in the
>> call handler - we would just need to do the same thing for per-call
>> structures and divorce them from prodesc, which can be repeated on
>> the implicit stack.
>>
>> I'll work on that - changes should be quite small.
>>
>
> Attached is a patch that fixes (I hope) both a recently introduced
> problem with recursion and a problem with array returns that became
> evident as a result of not throwing away non-fatal warnings (thanks to
> David Fetter for noticing this). Regression test updates to include
> both cases are included in the patch.
>
> I will start looking at putting the procedure descriptors in a dynahash.
>
>

and here's the patch this time.

cheers

andrew