[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: perl ithreads support: why hardcode at configure time ?

From: Mike Frysinger
Subject: Re: perl ithreads support: why hardcode at configure time ?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:11:05 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.1; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; )

On Friday 11 January 2013 04:08:26 Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 01/11/2013 05:07 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i can't imagine this is a big runtime penalty, so why does configure
> > check for the perl's thread settings and then hardcode that in the
> > generated automake ?
> I don't know, I wasn't around when the change was introduced.  You'll have
> to dig out the archives; if we don't find any compelling reason for having
> the check at configure time rather than runtime, I agree your change is a
> nice simplification ...

i couldn't find references to ithreads in the automake or automake-patches 

> > --- a/
> > +++ b/
> > @@ -77,32 +77,6 @@ installed, select the one Automake should use using
> >    ./configure PERL=/path/to/perl])
> >  }
> > -# We require ithreads support, and version 5.7.2 for CLONE.
> Here, the comments say (and the code agree) that we should support
> ithreads only from perl 5.7.2 onwards ...

i thought that meant something else.  oh well.

> > +use Config;
> > +our $perl_threads = $Config{useithreads};
> ... but there is no such check here.   And yes, so far we still support
> perl 5.6 so far (albeit we might want to start requiring 5.8 in Automake
> 1.14, but that's for another thread).

i'm not a perl hacker, so i don't know how to do that.  but a grep shows that 
automake is already doing that sort of thing in the tests, so i just copied 
+our $perl_threads = 0;
+if (eval { require 5.007_002; }) # for CLONE support
+  {
+    use Config;
+    $perl_threads = $Config{useithreads};
+  }

> Also, might I ask you to format your patches with "git am"?  That will make
> it super-easy for me to apply them.

i'm familiar with git.  i expected more push back on this, so i didn't write a 
proper commit as this was a RFC with a PoC patch inline.  no point in wasting 
time doing a write up (or the god awful time waste known as the GNU ChangeLog) 
if the patch is going to get rejected.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]