On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 01:02:24PM -0800, Gisle Aas wrote: > Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:23:04AM -0800, Gisle Aas wrote: > > > I suggest this patch (relative to 1.50) to get PERL_NO_GET_CONTEXT > > > going. Any reason not to? > > > > It's been a while since I looked into the issues so I'm not sure off-hand. > > > > The two big issues are 1) wanting to avoid having to recompile drivers, > > and 2) remaining backwards compatible with perl 5.6.x. > > > > Has this patch been tested in both those directions? > > I tried it with both ActivePerl 5.6 and 5.8 and with the DBD::mysql > built by our PPM server. They all seem happy. This patch does not > modify any of the function signatures so it should not really be any > compatibilty issues.
Ah, it's coming back to me now. All is well. > BTW, when you run 'make test' it will in the end tell you the "Testing > handle creation speed...". This patch did increase this speed by > 13-15% for ActivePerl; > > before: 16666 NullP sth/s perl 5.006001 i686-linux-thread-multi (gcc > 2.95.2 -O2) > after: 19230 NullP sth/s perl 5.006001 i686-linux-thread-multi (gcc > 2.95.2 -O2) Oooh. I always like speed ups :) > > I think it's time to move on from 5.6 now so I'm think that the next > > DBI release will be the last that officially supports 5.6. > > I'll send a note to dbi-users and see what the reaction is :) > > ActiveState certainly want to continue to support DBI for perl-5.6, so > we'll have figure out something if you drop support for it. I don't > think the PERL_NO_GET_CONTEXT mechanism is any different between 5.6 > and 5.8 so does not have to be the trigger for this transition. > Dealing with Unicode issues is certainly easier if you don't have to > care about 5.6. > > Personally I would like to see perl-5.6 still supported as it is a > faster perl in general and if you don't need the Unicode stuff it > seems fine to just stay there. I'd be very happy to support 5.6 so long as I don't find issues that make that too hard. Seems like e haven't yet, so that's good. > > Having done that I'm happy to be a little more radical for a while. > > (So I'm probably saying that I'll add this patch to 1.52 not 1.51.) > > That's good enough for me, but I also think this patch should be safe > right away. I can't think of anything that might break. Neither can I now I look at it again. I'll add it to 1.51. Thanks! (Any need adding to Driver.xst?) > > > Further, is it really problematic to start passing 'my_perl' as > > > argument to these functions? Are they ever called from drivers? > > > > [...] > > Sounds like a plan. I'll see if we can find time to do anything about it. That's great. Thanks Gisle. Tim.
