On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 05:27:38AM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Andrew Fresh wrote on Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 01:50:56PM -0700:
>
> > Post vBSDcon I have most existing patches working with 5.18.1, the only
> > failing so far is that with threads enabled
>
> If i understand correctly, we do not currently have threads enabled
> in our -current base perl 5.16, so that is not a regression.
You are correct, I had threads enabled in the github repo and forgot
that it hadn't actually made it in-tree.
> So, if that is all that is broken, you are basically claiming
> that perl 5.18.1 is ready for commit? ;-)
It seems close, I'd like to see some test reports on other
architectures, but since the lack of threads isn't actually a problem, I
will set up some of the other arch's that I have and see about testing
it on those.
I also do want to actually spend more time looking and trying to
understand the diff between 5.16.3 and 5.18.1 to make sure there wasn't
anything introduced that I had questions about. Perhaps helping unload
a moving truck this weekend will take less time than I expect.
> > t/op/threads-dirh.t fails.
> > (mv patches/{APPLIES,GOOD}/use_threads.patch)
> > This test appears to point to a failure that needs fixing but I am not
> > skilled enough to know how.
>
> That problem is neither related to threads nor to 5.18 nor even to
> Perl at all! The problem is that the seekdir(3) in our C library
> is badly broken: The readdir(3) function saves dirents in a buffer,
> so the lseek(2) done by seekdir(3) only takes effect after that
> buffer becomes exhausted. Otto's nice regression test doesn't catch
> that breakage because it only seeks far, far away, never in the
> neighbourhood.
This is amazing, thank you much, I will have to drink some extra coffee
and try to understand that as well.
l8rZ,
--
andrew - http://afresh1.com
The 3 great virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris.
--Larry Wall
