Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2009
Forgot the patch. On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Ruslan Zakirov<ruz@bestpractical.com> wrote: > Hello Dave, > > May be you're right, however it can be considered as regression. Here > is patch. It's up to you to decide whether to apply it or not. > > If you give me pointers at tests that check something like that, using > XS may be, then I can write a test. > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Dave Mitchell<davem@iabyn.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:54:07PM +0400, Ruslan Zakirov wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Nicholas Clark<nick@ccl4.org> wrote: >>> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:27:18PM +0400, Ruslan Zakirov wrote: >>> > >>> >> Looking closer at change >>> >> http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/commitdiff/c427f4d2d4575fbc8a5190932fe321136c7597b3, >>> >> I think that is should be reverted from 5.10.1. This change makes >>> >> fold_constants assert in run-time when function used by public API. >>> > >>> > What route does one arrive at fold_constants via the public API? >>> >>> Isn't newBINOP public? >>> >>> > >>> > (I don't remember everything in detail now, but I have a niggling feeling that >>> > various parts of the constant folding code assume that it *is* compile time.) >>> >>> May be then turn assert into return? >> >> As this stage I would prefer to ship 5.10.1 as-is and break B::Generate >> rather than risk breakage in 5.10.1. >> >> -- >> The warp engines start playing up a bit, but seem to sort themselves out >> after a while without any intervention from boy genius Wesley Crusher. >> -- Things That Never Happen in "Star Trek" #17 >> > > > > -- > Best regards, Ruslan. > -- Best regards, Ruslan.Thread Previous