develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2013

Re: [perl #120314] t/re/fold_grind.t spews tons of "Attempt to freetemp prematurely" warnings on DEBUGGING but ultimately passes

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
George Greer
Date:
November 5, 2013 01:46
Subject:
Re: [perl #120314] t/re/fold_grind.t spews tons of "Attempt to freetemp prematurely" warnings on DEBUGGING but ultimately passes
Message ID:
alpine.LFD.2.03.1311042038080.8992@m-l.org
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Peter Martini wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Father Chrysostomos via RT
> <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 24 19:55:58 2013, craig.a.berry@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Vincent Pit <perl@profvince.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But people do manual builds with g++ fairly regularly as a stricter,
>>>>> trouble-seeking C.  I think it's just that in the unusual case of
>>>>> bool, C is where the trouble is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you mean "stricter non-C". :)
>>>
>>> When you throw C code at a C++ compiler and it finds real problems
>>> that a C compiler didn't catch, then for all practical purposes it's a
>>> stricter C compiler.
>>>
>>>> The only legitimate use of a C++ compiler to build perl is to check
>>>> that the
>>>> headers are both valid C and C++.
>>>
>>> In that case, illegitimacy is more fun, or at least of more practical
>>> benefit.  See paragraph 4 of
>>> <http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2011/07/msg174792.html>.
>>
>> OK, but could someone comment on my patch that makes even C++ have a C-style bool under -DDEBUGGING? :-)
>>
>
> A couple of comments:
>
> My understanding of the intent of stdbool.h is that its sole purpose
> is to define bool, true, and false properly.  If we want to go this
> route, where DEBUGGING forces the traditional behavior, would it be
> clearer to have Configure unset I_STDBOOL if DEBUGGING was passed?
>
> The header file stdbool.h was added in C99 for the sole purpose of
> defining bool, true, and false.  It was done as a header file rather
> than adding new keywords, so that any existing defines of those tokens
> didn't break, and anything that wanted the new C99 behavior for those
> files could just include stdbool.h - anything that wanted to maintain
> C89 compatibility could opt out of those three keywords by not
> including the stdbool.h header file.  Incidentally, if we never
> included stdbool.h, we'd also be missing out on 'true' and 'false',
> which would catch a similar class of error (that only a smoke on
> George's VC6 caught when I made it).

I'm actually running Visual Studio 2005 Express (8.0), not Visual Studio 6.

I chose that because it is the last Visual Studio that runs on Windows 
2000, which is what my virtual machine runs.

I do have a spare license for Windows XP 64-bit that I can activate under 
the VM if support for Visual Studio 6 and 2005 is dropped by Perl for 
whatever reasons.


-- 
George Greer

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About