David Golden wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Martin Evans <martin.ev...@easysoft.com
<mailto:martin.ev...@easysoft.com>> wrote:
I didn't get the impression this person was doing a single report -
he is 16th on the leader board of test submissions. If the C
compiler is not set up properly (and see below because I did not
generate the compiler error) he could generate thousands of UNKNOWN
for any module that has XS - does not seem any point in that.
There's a debate at the moment on #p5p about whether it's an error to
have $Config{cc} and not have the named compiler. If so, every AS perl
is "broken".
There *is* a point -- it's how well does a distribution that requires a
compiler deal with the situation where a compiler doesn't exist. Does
it die with a reasonable error to a user? Or does it fail with
something unintelligible. It's just a prerequisite like any other.
This smoker does seem to have a compiler but it is not set up right. I
see little point in a smoker doing this all day - it will generate loads
of reports for little gain - so I guess we'll have to disagree there.
I guess I was interested to find out if this was deliberate or
unintentional.
In this case, the "UNKNOWN" result is correct (in the new definition
of it). The build failed and tests could not be run, thus the
result of tests is unknown. Your error message is very descriptive
-- I think it's perhaps the best Makefile.PL error message I've ever
seen.
That error did not come from me - I think it may have come from
ExtUtils::MakeMaker but I'm not sure.
I meant the long text from Makefile.PL about running the VCVARS32.bat
file and so on. You're being very prescriptive about how to get the
compiler set up correctly. I think that's awesome.
So did I. I do not generate that text - it must come from
ExtUtils::MakeMaker, or MS visual C may be.
-- David
Martin
