develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2007

Re: New release ?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
January 8, 2007 01:44
Subject:
Re: New release ?
Message ID:
20070108094352.GL30742@plum.flirble.org
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:49:11AM +0100, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> On 2007-01-05, at 20:07:09 +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:

> > I'd go for 0. It generates valid C code, and I think that it's also
> > semantically correct.
> 
> The test failures that were caused by setting NV_PRESERVES_UV_BITS
> to zero should have been fixed by Sadahiro's patch, which has just
> been applied (change #29693).

I couldn't work out why I couldn't replicate the failures.
In turn, I wasn't sure how Data::Dumper could be assuming too much.

> So, I'd vote for fixing this. I had already suggested this change:
> 
> --- Configure.orig      2007-01-02 11:11:59.000000000 +0100
> +++ Configure   2007-01-02 19:18:48.000000000 +0100
> @@ -15322,7 +15322,7 @@
>  [1-9]*)        $echo "Your NVs can preserve only $nv_preserves_uv_bits bits of your UVs."  2>&1
>         d_nv_preserves_uv="$undef" ;;
>  *)     $echo "Can't figure out how many bits your NVs preserve." 2>&1
> -       nv_preserves_uv_bits="$undef" ;;
> +       nv_preserves_uv_bits="0" ;;
>  esac
>  
>  $rm -f try.* try
> 
> Marcus

Yes, I like that.
But I still don't understand Data::Dumper's assumptions.

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About