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