Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2015
I realized that I one of my replies to Abigail was accidentally private: > > > How big is big enough to warn? Either 32, because your program would be > > > affected if run on a 32-bit perl (even though you aren't) or maxbits, because > > > it is affected in this runtime. > > > > It's not (just) the question of ancient Perls. > > > > Some platforms still are natively 32-bit. Some of them are not > > necessarily that current but I *think* (may be wrong...) for example > > Solaris cc still defaults to 32-bit long (maybe on older Sparc only) > > and therefore also IV is 32-bit. Ditto for HPUX. > > Sure. But I'm fairly certain that the overwhelming majority of the > code *I* write is never going to run a perl that doesn't deal with > 64 bit integers; even on the boxes I own that use 32 bit hardware, > the perls I'm using are old enough to accept the 64bit integer > compilation flag. > > This makes the warning utterly useless and very annoying (to me). Also, another example of us leaking the wordsize is ~. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 08:55:05AM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote: >> >> How big is big enough to warn? Either 32, because your program would be >> affected if run on a 32-bit perl (even though you aren't) or maxbits, because >> it is affected in this runtime. > > > I'd really hate it if a program starts warning for something that > has a theoretical chance of happening, when you know very well in > reality it will never. > > Warn me if I actually run with a 32-bit perl, not because I may want > to drag out and compile 5.004 (or whatever version it was that wasn't > able to deal with 64 bit integers) and run my program on. > > > Abigail -- There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'. -- Jack CohenThread Previous | Thread Next