Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2013
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:40:14PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
[ stuff about caller and __SUB__ in /(?{})? code blocks. ]
I've just applied the following three commits to blead, which
collectively fix up the behaviour of caller() / __SUB__
enough for 5.18.0 IMHO.
commit b00652470bcd63ec9dee77ad3149214aebcee0df
Author: David Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>
AuthorDate: Wed Apr 24 11:14:39 2013 +0100
Commit: David Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>
CommitDate: Wed Apr 24 16:39:47 2013 +0100
PUSH_MULTICALL_WITHDEPTH becomes ..._FLAGS
Two non-API macros were added with 5.17.1 to support the more
complex calling conventions required by /({})/ code blocks:
PUSH_MULTICALL_WITHDEPTH(the_cv, depth)
CHANGE_MULTICALL_WITHDEPTH(the_cv, depth)
which allowed us to do the same as the API versions, but to optionally
not increment the caller depth, and to change the current CV.
Replace these with two new macros:
PUSH_MULTICALL_FLAGS(the_cv, flags)
CHANGE_MULTICALL_FLAGS(the_cv, flags)
which instead allow us to set extra flags in cx->cx_type.
The depth increment skip is handled by the new CXp_SUB_RE_FAKE flag,
and all (?{}) calls set the new CXp_SUB_RE flag.
These two new flags will shortly allow us to change how caller() and
__SUB__ handle code blocks.
commit 5fbe83117ea59ccad42477c465113c7550a3675d
Author: David Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>
AuthorDate: Wed Apr 24 14:41:33 2013 +0100
Commit: David Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>
CommitDate: Wed Apr 24 16:39:47 2013 +0100
fix caller with re_evals.
(See RT #113928)
In code like
sub foo { /A(?{ bar; caller(); }B/; }
the regex /A(?{B})C/ is, from a scope point of view, supposed to
be compiled and executed as:
/A/ && do { B } && /C/;
i.e. the code block in B is part of the same sub as the code surrounding
the regex. Thus the result of caller() above should see the caller as
whoever called foo.
Due to an implementation detail, we actually push a hidden extra
sub CX before calling the pattern. This detail was leaking when caller()
was used. Fux it so that it ignores this extra context frame.
Conversely, for a qr//, that *is* supposed to be seen as an extra level
of anonymous sub, so add tests to ensure that is so.
i.e.
$r = qr/...(?{code}).../
/...$r.../
is supposed to behave like
$r = sub { code };
$r->();
commit a453e28ae209e82ef2533e2e2bfe25490fd60654
Author: David Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>
AuthorDate: Wed Apr 24 16:29:42 2013 +0100
Commit: David Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>
CommitDate: Wed Apr 24 16:40:15 2013 +0100
make qr/(?{ __SUB__ })/ safe
(See RT #113928)
Formerly, __SUB__ within a code block within a qr// returned
a pointer to the "hidden" anon CV that implements the qr// closure. Since
this was never designed to be called directly, it would SEGV if you tried.
The easiest way to make this safe is to skip any CXt_SUB frames that
are marked as CXp_SUB_RE: i.e. skip any subs that are there just to
execute code blocks. For a qr//, this means that we return the sub which
the pattern match is embedded in.
Also, document the behaviour of __SUB__ within code blocks as being
subject to change. It could be argued for example that in these cases it
should return undef. But with the 5.18.0 release a month or two away, just
make it safe for now, and revisit the semantics later if necessary.
--
"Procrastination grows to fill the available time"
-- Mitchell's corollary to Parkinson's Law
Thread Previous