Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:35:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: FWIW, it looks like a large part of the bloat in the newer file is in-line documentation, which we hardly need to include in our distribution. I'll leave it to someone more familiar with Perl to determine

Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-31 Thread Devrim GUNDUZ
Hi, On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 08:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > ppport.h is throwing warnings when compiling on Fedora Core 5 > (with perl-5.8.8-4). I gather from the comments in the head > of that file that we ought to look for a newer version. I've informed Andrew about this, he sent me a patch a few

Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-31 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:35:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > FWIW, it looks like a large part of the bloat in the newer file is > in-line documentation, which we hardly need to include in our > distribution. I'll leave it to someone more familiar with Perl to > determine whether we want to try to u

Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is, but this misses the point. You want to use the latest ppport.h > even when building with earlier perls. Doh, of course. Well, for the moment I'll just put in the #ifndef. FWIW, it looks like a large part of the bloat in the newer file is in-li

Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: A more radical solution is to remove ppport.h from our distribution entirely, and have the Makefile generate it at build time, using that same little bit of script you showed. Or is Devel::PPPort not part of the standard Perl distribution? It is, but this misses th

Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm. It compiles without warnings, but the new ppport.h is about 100K >> larger than the old one :-(. The change we seem to actually need is >> just to put "#ifndef PERL_UNUSED_DECL" around the attempted declaration >> of that macro,

Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't currently have an FC5 box to test with. Here's what to try: move > the ppport.h aside, and in the plperl directory run this command to > generate a replacement: > perl -MDevel::PPPort -e 'Devel::PPPort::WriteFile();' > and then recompile.

Re: [HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: ppport.h is throwing warnings when compiling on Fedora Core 5 (with perl-5.8.8-4). I gather from the comments in the head of that file that we ought to look for a newer version. I don't currently have an FC5 box to test with. Here's what to try: move the ppport.h aside, and

[HACKERS] plperl's ppport.h out of date?

2006-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
ppport.h is throwing warnings when compiling on Fedora Core 5 (with perl-5.8.8-4). I gather from the comments in the head of that file that we ought to look for a newer version. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP