develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2018

Re: What platforms should we remove support from?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Steve Hay via perl5-porters
Date:
November 5, 2018 08:35
Subject:
Re: What platforms should we remove support from?
Message ID:
CADED=K41H6Lo3xWkTKGa7jzUjmgospn=gnQEnuRmT-mOyqse3g@mail.gmail.com
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 05:16, Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/4/18 9:22 AM, Karl Williamson wrote:
> > On 7/30/18 1:51 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
> >> On 29 July 2018 at 19:15, Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 07/28/2018 06:16 PM, Tomasz Konojacki wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:43:25 -0600
> >>>> Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We agreed to remove support for Ultrix in the thread beginning at
> >>>>> http://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/249983
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What other ancient platforms should go (like Atari) ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Recently there was some discussion about removing Windows CE support:
> >>>> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/07/msg251510.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, it's not really a platform, but dropping Visual C++ 6 support
> >>>> is a
> >>>> recurring topic on this list, most recently in this ticket:
> >>>> https://rt.perl.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=132766
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ok.  Comments welcome on these.
> >>>
> >>> I am of the opinion that we shouldn't remove stuff just because it's
> >>> old and
> >>> even disused.  As others said in the thread, only if it's causing us
> >>> problems now should it be removed.  These problems could mean a bunch of
> >>> specialized code for it, such as VC++6 has, or a bunch of open
> >>> tickets that
> >>> would require adding specialized code to fix.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, VC6 has special code in handy.h, inline.h, numeric.c, perl.h and
> >> util.h. There isn't very much to it, but based on past experience
> >> there seems to be a greater chance of having future problems and
> >> needing more special code like it in the future than there is with
> >> later compilers. Right now I don't mind too much whether it stays or
> >> goes, but we might regret not having ditched it the next time a
> >> problem comes up...
> >
> > I'm thinking we should generate a compilation error if this is tried.
> >>
> >> However, I think WinCE should definitely go. The only vocal supporters
> >> of it in the recent past have been Vadim and bulk88 and both have
> >> indicated that they don't object to it going. Also, as I wrote in the
> >> other thread that was cited above, I believe it's currently broken
> >> anyway and has been for some time.
> >
> > I will prepare a patch
>
> Actually, I think it should be done by somebody who actually understands
> this
>

Should there be some period of warning about WinCE support's impending
death, or are we just going for it and removing it now? We normally
have a deprecation period when removing things, but there's a case for
arguing it isn't needed for platforms on which the build is already
broken.

For VC6 (which currently builds fine) we could issue a compile-time
warning message (#pragma message("...") rather than #error ...) for
now, removing support from 5.32 if nobody has spoken up in its support
since?

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