develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from February 2001

Re: Auto-install (was autoloaded...)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Dan Sugalski
Date:
February 9, 2001 13:20
Subject:
Re: Auto-install (was autoloaded...)
Message ID:
5.0.2.1.0.20010209093820.0224bd88@24.8.96.48
At 11:32 AM 2/9/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
>Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > that I really don't know: in the same platform, different compilers
>generate
>  > > incompatible binaries? Because if this happens (and will still happen
>on
> > > Perl 6) the platform identification should be os/cpu/compiler. Perhaps
>each
> >
> > on perl 5 different configure options generate different binaries.
>
>Can this be standardized somehow? Perl 6 binary level compatibility, for
>extensions? In a way that distributing binary modules would be at least
>possible? It's already a big trouble to consider the various different
>os/cpu combinations, configure options is not feasible at all!

Perl, generally speaking, should have a mechanism to indicate compatibility 
based on various compilation issues. Given that this sort of thing impacts 
my platform of choice (VMS) more than others, it will.

>Compilers I
>can take, I don't actually expect gcc/MS VC++ generating compatible dlls,
>althought I think it could be possible...

I'm always amazed that people put up with this sort of nonsense. All 
compilers on a platform should generate compatible code. I don't really 
care whether it's COBOL, PL/I, ADA, C, Fortran, or BASIC.


					Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk


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