On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:01:24 +, Tim Bunce
wrote:
> DBI 1.617_903 has a 100% pass rate on everything except MSWin32, where
> there are three reports so far and 100% failure:
>
> http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBI%201.617_903;reports=1;os=mswin32
>
> Result Id O
On 21/02/12 22:01, Tim Bunce wrote:
DBI 1.617_903 has a 100% pass rate on everything except MSWin32, where
there are three reports so far and 100% failure:
http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBI%201.617_903;reports=1;os=mswin32
Result Id OS vers archname
On 22/02/12 08:22, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 21/02/12 22:01, Tim Bunce wrote:
DBI 1.617_903 has a 100% pass rate on everything except MSWin32,
where there are three reports so far and 100% failure:
http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBI%201.617_903;reports=1;os=mswin32
Result Id OS vers ar
On 22/02/12 08:55, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 22/02/12 08:22, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 21/02/12 22:01, Tim Bunce wrote:
DBI 1.617_903 has a 100% pass rate on everything except MSWin32,
where there are three reports so far and 100% failure:
http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBI%201.617_903;re
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:04:45AM +, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> DBI.xs(4291) : error C2275: 'SV' : illegal use of this type as an expression
> C:\Perl\lib\CORE\perl.h(2243) : see declaration of 'SV'
...
> Lines 4291 and 4292 are:
> MY_CXT_INIT;
> (void)MY_CXT; /* avoid 'unused va
On 22/02/12 11:09, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:04:45AM +, Martin J. Evans wrote:
DBI.xs(4291) : error C2275: 'SV' : illegal use of this type as an expression
C:\Perl\lib\CORE\perl.h(2243) : see declaration of 'SV'
...
Lines 4291 and 4292 are:
MY_CXT_INIT;
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> On 22/02/12 11:09, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> It didn't:
> It is possible the following is the relevant code after preprocessing:
Hi, it turns out that it's a different section of code, but looking at the
right bit of code, the BOOT:
On 22/02/12 16:37, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 22/02/12 11:09, Dave Mitchell wrote:
It didn't:
It is possible the following is the relevant code after preprocessing:
Hi, it turns out that it's a different section of code, but look