A bit more thinking led me to try:
float safe_version; ... eval_pv((safe_version < (float)2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
which seems to fix the issue. (after all float *should* be accurate enough in this case)
cheers
Mark
P.s : trivial patch attached
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Could be a rounding issue. What happens if you try this instead:?
eval_pv((safe_version <= 2.08 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
Alternatively, what happens if we make safe_version a double rather than a float?
(If nothing else works we might have to fall back on a lexical comparison)
cheers
andrew
--- plperl.c.orig 2004-11-24 17:04:07.000000000 +1300
+++ plperl.c 2004-11-24 17:04:21.000000000 +1300
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@
safe_version = SvNV(res);
- eval_pv((safe_version < 2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
+ eval_pv((safe_version < (float)2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
plperl_safe_init_done = true;
}
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
