Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2012
On Sat, 5 May 2012 09:43:36 +0100, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 10:31:45AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > > Wow, what dig-work. > > Thanks. > > > This is indeed insane. It probably only #fail this way on PA-RISC, as > > the itanium boxes seem to accept these. I do not expect HP to come with > > a fix, as PA-RISC is kinda abandoned. I could try to contact them. > > If it's in support, please do contact them. I'd hope that they'd agree > that it's a bug, even if they don't want to fix it. > > > Shall I alter the hints to drop +O when -g is in place? > > I guess so. Although it sort of feels more like fixing the symptoms than the > problem. In that I think also Configure should have validated the combined > compiler flags it created worked (which probably isn't that hard to add) > and then (at least) bailed out (easy). > > But ideally it would have gone "oh, I can't add -g" or "I can add -g but I'll > have to ignore optimize", because I'm quite surprised that any compiler other > than gcc is happy with -O and -g. But that's harder. > > IIRC the "old style" way of things was that -DDEBUGGING was added if "optimize" > contained -g, so there wasn't this problem. There *was* the problem that people > (rightly) didn't expect the slowdown from -DDEBUGGING if all they wanted to do > was add C level debugging symbols. As this - most likely - only occurs with non-gcc compilers, and those are probably all commercial, I have no problem with dealing with this in the hints. I now have a workable hint change ready to apply. OK for pre-5.16? -- H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/ using perl5.00307 .. 5.14 porting perl5 on HP-UX, AIX, and openSUSE http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org/ http://qa.perl.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/Thread Previous | Thread Next