develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2014

Re: Is the warning fatalization mechanism in fact safe (specificaly FATAL => 'ununitialized')

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Father Chrysostomos
Date:
December 27, 2014 17:36
Subject:
Re: Is the warning fatalization mechanism in fact safe (specificaly FATAL => 'ununitialized')
Message ID:
20141227173608.29732.qmail@lists-nntp.develooper.com
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Over the years I have heard several off-the-record remarks that the
> FATAL warning mechanism is in fact rather broken and can not be relied
> upon. Problems described ranged from "both warning and exception will
> disappear in the ether" to "will corrupt the callstack in cases of
> DESTROY-unwind FATAL warnings".

My previous response only addressed the latter.  In all stable
releases of perl, fatals warnings will cause errors and warnings to
disappear at compile time.  This is because the perl compiler likes to
be rather garrulous and emit several warnings before the actual error.
Hence the first warning becomes fatal and the rest is skipped.  We
have fixed this in bleadperl.

The examples you posted are not subject to any of the drawbacks I have
pointed out, as far as I can tell.


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