On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 08:32:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:32:16PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > > What about patching bin-prot syntax extension to produce "nothing" when > > used... This way, everything still get compiled with "fake" bin-prot... > > I think it will make the required patch smaller (i.e. you will have only > > to patch where the serialization is used and not everywhere). > > Nice idea. Actually it will change what is being patched, as we will > then patch bin-prot rather than core, but this sounds like a good idea. > > Still, it won't be enough to remove completely the need to patch core, > as core has module interfaces which assume that bin-prot has generated > something. One can then think to push your approach further and make > bin-prot generate "assert false" functions rather than nothing, having > static type correctness but runtime errors (which then would become > harder to detect by buildds). Well, it seems like an interesting path, > though not entirely trivial. > > Still, the best would be for bin-prot to support all archs. Maybe we > should wait for the next round of upstream releases? I do hope that > various people will push and/or push for supporting more archs. If > nothing will change, we can move from the current very hackish solution > to yours less hackish solution? (provided we can implement it properly)
BTW, i followed this only by far, but have you communicated with upstream about this situation, and what is their opinion on this ? If there is a need to patch cor/bin-proto, maybe the best way is to provide the patch upstream and discuss it with them in order to not need a patch in the future ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
