Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2012
On 07/12/2012 09:59 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote: > I *think* that the code in version's vutil/vutil.c is (pretty much) exactly > the code in (part of) util.c In fact, I copy that block of code back and forth (depending on which side was updated last). There are a couple of very minor differences but ultimately they are intended to be identical and with very little work could be identical. > 1) Hence, it ought to be possible to #include "cpan/version/vutil/vutil.c" > from util.c, and de-dup the code. It will likely need a few #defines > and #ifdefs added in a couple of places. > > I *think* that the code in universal.c is supposed to be the same as > the version/vutil/vxs.c that ExtUtils::ParseXS generates from vxs.xs This part has been historically more manual, but yes, they are intended to be identical. > Whilst we have somewhat a bootstrapping problem in that miniperl needs that > code to build lib/Config.pm to build ... to build ExtUtils::ParseXS to build > that code, *unlike* DynaLoader this isn't horrible platform specific mess. > So it might well be possible to > > 2) split out that bit of universal.c into another C file which is #include-ed > from universal.c > > 3) potentially, automate *generating* that file from vxs.xs (in some fashion), > and having a script in regen/ to do this, and a test in t/porting/regen.t > to check that it doesn't diverge. I can take a crack at this, but right now isn't a terribly good time (my wife has had some worrying health issues and I'm currently at her bedside in the ICU, though she is actually doing quite well now)... JohnThread Previous | Thread Next