Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2008
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:26PM +0530, Robert May wrote: > On 10/03/2008, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > > Also, is it right to do this within the 5.8.x branch? > > > > +# added -mms-bitfields to be able to link to MSVC win32 bitfields libs > > +# (4 byte instead of 2 byte alignment) > > > > $spitshell >>Makefile <<!GROK!THIS! > > LIBPERL = $libperl > > @@ -42,6 +50,7 @@ > > DLLNAME= $dllname > > CLDFLAGS= -L$addtopath $ldflags > > LDDLFLAGS = --shared -L$addtopath $ldflags > > +CCFLAGS=$ccflags -mms-bitfields > > PLDLFLAGS = > > CAT = $cat > > AWK = $awk > > > > specifically, it will act as a binary compatibility breakage between 5.8.8 > > and 5.8.9, won't it? > > 5.8.8 doesn't use bit fields. If 5.8.9-to-be has the bit field > changes merged, then this should be added (but I doubt they have been > merged as I think that would break binary compatibility between 5.8.8 > and 5.8.9). If the bit field changes have not been merged, then this > is not necessary (but it won't harm either) It can't have the bit field changes merged for precisely that reason. I was more thinking that it *can* harm, if those flags are used on XS modules that incorporate headers from elsewhere, that are already using bitfields in ways that are affected by the flags. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next