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:
Karl Williamson
Date:
November 5, 2013 04:47
Subject:
Re: [perl #120314] t/re/fold_grind.t spews tons of "Attempt to freetemp prematurely" warnings on DEBUGGING but ultimately passes
Message ID:
52787841.70909@khwilliamson.com
On 11/4/2013 6:45 PM, George Greer wrote:
> 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.
>
>

I jsut read in computerworld or similar that XP is having huge security 
issues; maybe you don't care for a VM.

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