develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2010

[perl #77320] [PATCH] Re: Do we need CALL_FPTR and CPERLscope?

Thread Next
Ben Morrow
August 19, 2010 08:51
[perl #77320] [PATCH] Re: Do we need CALL_FPTR and CPERLscope?
Message ID:
# New Ticket Created by  Ben Morrow 
# Please include the string:  [perl #77320]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. 
# <URL: >

This appears to've been warnocked, so I'm forwarding it to RT so it
doesn't get lost. Sorry, I should've done that in the first place.


At  2PM -0700 on 13/08/10 you (Jan Dubois) wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ben Morrow wrote:
> > 
> > Is there any reason not to go through and strip out all instances of
> > CALL_FPTR and CPERLscope? STATIC could perhaps be left alone; it seems
> > potentially useful in the future.
> +1

Patches attached. 

The first patch removes all the instances in the core proper, and adds
#ifndef PERL_CORE around the definitions in perl.h with a comment that
they should not be used. I think the definitions probably need to stay
there, or move to ppport.h, since it's likely they've been picked up by
CPAN XS modules.

The second patch removes the three instances of CPERLscope in
Devel-PPPort. It's a separate patch since DPPP is a CPAN module and if I
understand protocol correctly it has to go upstream first. I'm also not
certain what DPPP's compatibility requirements are: is it possible
ppport.h would be expected to work with a (really old) perl that was
built with PERL_OBJECT?


Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About