We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
I'm creating a root
mps_root_t root; mps_res_t res = mps_root_create_area (&root, arena, mps_rank_exact (), MPS_RM_PROT + MPS_RM_PROT_INNER, start, end, scan_staticvec, NULL);
and get an assertion failure
root.c:89: MPS ASSERTION FAILED: (mode & RootModePROTECTABLE_INNER) == 0 || (mode & RootModePROTECTABLE)
Looking at the sources, I see that mpmtypes.h has
mpmtypes.h
#define RootModePROTECTABLE_INNER ((RootMode)1<<2)
while mps.h has
mps.h
#define MPS_RM_PROT (((mps_rm_t)1<<1)) #define MPS_RM_PROT_INNER (((mps_rm_t)1<<1))
MPS_RM_PROT_INNER + MPS_RN_PROT is 4 which is, in the check, INNER without specifying PROT.
MPS_RM_PROT_INNER + MPS_RN_PROT
So I think the definition of MPS_PROT_INNER should have been 1 << 2.
MPS_PROT_INNER
1 << 2
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
thejayps
No branches or pull requests
I'm creating a root
and get an assertion failure
Looking at the sources, I see that
mpmtypes.h
haswhile
mps.h
hasMPS_RM_PROT_INNER + MPS_RN_PROT
is 4 which is, in the check, INNER without specifying PROT.So I think the definition of
MPS_PROT_INNER
should have been1 << 2
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: