Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Father Chrysostomos wrote: > On Sat Dec 17 23:17:09 2011, sprout wrote: >> On Sat Dec 17 20:36:28 2011, alh wrote: >> > This is because when nothing is actually happening in the main scope of >> > the program it's treated as an OP_STUB which causes Perl_newPROG() to >> > skip out before setting PL_main_start; which is what the warning > requires: .... >> > Since the CHECK blocks don't actually get run, the warning should still >> > get generated. Does PL_main_start (and PL_main_root, etc..) need to get >> > set even when it's just an OP_STUB? Or is this an unlikely / illogical >> > situation? >> >> It may be very unlikely, but I would not consider it illogical to want >> to eval a generated CHECK block. > > On the other hand, this bug report was about the main program, not an > empty eval. So I am apparently rather confused. This bug is only about a very unlikely to occur case, so is presumably very low priority. On the other hand, given this bug, there may be other undesirable consequences of not having PL_main_start set for an empty main program. On the gripping hand, fixing that will require significant diligence to see that no bugs are introduced.Thread Next