+1 for this fix. Adam, if you want to apply it, I'll roll RC6.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Adam Prime <adam.pr...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> #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.
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@perl.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@perl.apache.org
