Re: suspicious pointer/integer coersion

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 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.

cheers

andrew