Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2013
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 GreerThread Previous | Thread Next