> #if defined(__GNUC__)&& !defined(PERL_GCC_BRACE_GROUPS_FORBIDDEN)
> # define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ({ void *_p = (p); _p; })
> #else
> # define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ((void *) (p))
> #endif
>
> So the solution for the problem is simple:
>
> # ifdef MUTABLE_SV
> SV *sv=MUTABLE_SV(...);
> # else
> SV *sv=(SV*)...
> # endif
>
This fixed the problem i was having, and all the tests pass. the patch I
used to the rc5 tree source is attached. it'll probably have to be
poked with to apply to svn.
Because the solution to this particular issue appears to be this simple,
I think that it might be in our best interest to do rc6 with this
change, and explicitly say we aren't going to support whatever we aren't
going to support for the next release. I am more than willing to be
overruled on this though ;)
Adam
On 12-04-20 06:27 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
On Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:45:59 Fred Moyer wrote:
Apparently MUTABLE_CV doesn't exist under 5.8.8
Verified. Thoughts? +1 to ship as is. 5.8.8 isn't being shipped with
any new Linux or other OS distributions as far as I know.
I think the central question is how many perl versions back we want to
support. This has been discussed a few times already. Perl itself has settled
on support for the current stable version plus one back. Current stable is
5.14. So, they support 5.14 and 5.12. But support for 5.12 will end soon as
5.16 is approaching. See L<perlpolicy>.
As for modperl, I am not sure if we should bind our compatibility policy to a
fixed number of perl/httpd versions. But something like "for 2.0.7 we are
dropping support for perl versions older than 5.12, httpd versions older than
... and APR versions older than ..." in the beginning of the dev cycle would
be good. Then we have to make sure that trunk is tested against the supported
versions on a regular basis. Or perhaps we should make it a white list like
2.0.7 will support perl 5.12 .. 5.16, httpd 2.2.x, apr 1.4.x. Modperl 2.1 will
support perl ..., httpd 2.4.x, ...
If we cannot assure testing trunk against those versions regularly we must
change that statement *before* RC1 is rolled.
Producing release candidates is someone's work and time. Testing them is so,
too. I understand that there must be a RC(n+1) if RCn introduced a bug while
fixing another. But if RCn (with say n>2) has a compatibility issue that comes
up only because modperl was first tested in the environment at that stage I
think that does not qualify for another RC.
If the interest in 5.8.8 compatibility is great enough to fix the issue (I
don't say it is a bug) and Fred wants to roll another RC I'll test it. But
IMHO RC5 is good enough to be 2.0.6.
diff -Naur mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5-orig/src/modules/perl/modperl_const.c mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5/src/modules/perl/modperl_const.c
--- mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5-orig/src/modules/perl/modperl_const.c 2012-02-14 15:33:12.000000000 -0500
+++ mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5/src/modules/perl/modperl_const.c 2012-04-20 11:02:05.441995397 -0400
@@ -50,8 +50,11 @@
if (!isGV(alias)) {
gv_init(alias, caller_stash, name, name_len, TRUE);
}
-
+#ifdef MUTABLE_CV
GvCV_set(alias, MUTABLE_CV(SvREFCNT_inc(GvCV(*gvp))));
+#else
+ GvCV_set(alias, (CV*)(SvREFCNT_inc(GvCV(*gvp))));
+#endif
}
}
diff -Naur mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5-orig/src/modules/perl/modperl_perl.c mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5/src/modules/perl/modperl_perl.c
--- mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5-orig/src/modules/perl/modperl_perl.c 2012-02-14 15:33:12.000000000 -0500
+++ mod_perl-2.0.6-rc5/src/modules/perl/modperl_perl.c 2012-04-20 11:02:52.041582992 -0400
@@ -55,8 +55,13 @@
while (cglobals->name) {
GV *gv = gv_fetchpv(cglobals->core_name, TRUE, SVt_PVCV);
+#ifdef MUTABLE_CV
GvCV_set(gv,
MUTABLE_CV(SvREFCNT_inc(get_cv(cglobals->sub_name, TRUE))));
+#else
+ GvCV_set(gv,
+ (CV*)(SvREFCNT_inc(get_cv(cglobals->sub_name, TRUE))));
+#endif
GvIMPORTED_CV_on(gv);
cglobals++;
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@perl.apache.org
