[perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread James Keenan via RT
Cosimo, chromatic, et al.: Please try out the new version of t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t attached. It works for me on both Darwin and Linux as an argument to either /usr/bin/prove or /usr/local/bin/prove. Thank you very much. kid51 111-auto_gcc-01.t Description: Binary data

Re: [perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread Cosimo Streppone
James Keenan via RT wrote: > Cosimo, > > The more I look at this, the more I wonder whether the test failure in > 111-auto_gcc-01.t (reported below) has anything to do with the presence > or absence of gdbm on one's OS or whether one's Perl was build with gdbm > or not. > I'm sorry. I now realiz

[perl #47141] [PDD19] Line directive

2007-11-03 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol # Please include the string: [perl #47141] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47141 > the line directive is missing in PDD19. THis patch adds a description, and also adds

[perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread James Keenan via RT
I can now reproduce the problem reported by Cosimo and chromatic. If instead of running the tests in t/configure/ with 'prove' -- which is connected to my hand-built (without gdbm) Perl 5.8.7 -- I run those same tests with '/usr/bin/prove' -- which is connected to the vendor-supplied Perl 5.8.8 bu

Re: [perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread James E Keenan
chromatic wrote: I bet that Cosimo's test.ldo file says "couldn't link with -lgdbm" or something similar. I see the same failure; here's what's in my test.ldo: /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgdbm collect2: ld returned 1 exit status For whatever reason, this test file is trying

Re: [perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread chromatic
On Saturday 03 November 2007 07:32:21 James Keenan via RT wrote: > The more I look at this, the more I wonder whether the test failure in > 111-auto_gcc-01.t (reported below) has anything to do with the presence > or absence of gdbm on one's OS or whether one's Perl was build with gdbm > or not.

[perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread James Keenan via RT
Cosimo, The more I look at this, the more I wonder whether the test failure in 111-auto_gcc-01.t (reported below) has anything to do with the presence or absence of gdbm on one's OS or whether one's Perl was build with gdbm or not. > > --8< > [EMAIL PROTEC

[PIRC] PIR Compiler Collection

2007-11-03 Thread Klaas-Jan Stol
hi, today I finished the heredoc pre-processor for PIRC/new. PIRC/new is now a three-pass compiler for PIR: 1. the heredoc pre-processor converts all heredoc strings into normal strings by "flattening" them. All comments (POD, line) are removed in this phase. 2. the macro pre-processor handles al

[perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread James Keenan via RT
I believe that what we have stumbled on here is a case where we have been bitten on the butt by our dependence on Perl 5's Config.pm and the global, read-only variable it supplies, %Config. If the Perl you use for building Parrot was not build with gdbm, then no reference to gdbm will be located i

Re: [perl #47127] [PATCH] t/configure/111-auto_gcc-01.t test failure

2007-11-03 Thread Cosimo Streppone
James Keenan via RT wrote: > Cosimo Streppone wrote: >> # New Ticket Created by Cosimo Streppone >> # Please include the string: [perl #47127] >> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. >> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47127 > > >> Just found out