EV on AIX?

[Marc Lehmann]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:06:38AM -0600, Darin McBride <darin.mcbride at shaw.ca> wrote:
> How about someone without knowledge? :-)

Well, knowledge can sometimes be found, more important is, and I forgot
to mention, the ability to actually test it (making it compile and making
sure the change is actually used is already a great test :-)

> things out, and got it to compile.  And then "make test" worked, though I 

Thanks a lot, that looks good enough for the next version - you could test current
CVS, if you wish (cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anonymous at cvs.schmorp.de/schmorpforge co libev)

> don't know how much of this memory fence stuff is tested by the current test 
> suite.

None is tested, and I wouldn't even know how to properly test it, as in
many cases (and on many cpus), it would work without memory fences - it'S
a race after all.

For example, all x86 cpus factually procide more guarantees, which is why
older libev versions do not need memory fences on these cpus, but there is
no guarantee that future cpus wouldn't change this.

However, the normal EV tests uite will execute the fence code, so it will
at least check whether the code is legal.

> the author IRL, and he does seem to be a genius).  The only issue is that 
> Peeter claimed that this function was in builtins.h, but I can't find that on 
> my AIX box.  I'll have to ask him about it.  (It doesn't seem to be required.)

Maybe some builtins are form there, and others are not, and ibm wanted to
keep the option of moving things around.

Or maybe your aix box is just too old *g*

> Which it does with modern gcc compilers, but xlC's defaults don't allow that.  
> Yes, I know, that's from the 1999 standard of C.

Good that xlC has an option for it :) In fact, perl should properly
configured with that option, and suddenly all those modules start to work.

In any case, my only experiences with xlC I made in 1994-6 or so, and...
no, don't make me think back. Things *must* have changed to the better
since then!!

> (I've already seen that you're aware of how 5.15.9 and common::sense don't see 
> eye-to-eye under -w, which is, quite unfortunately, how tests are run.)

-w is simply beyond broken - however, common::sense has a workaround for
perl 5.15 for two weeks now, are you sure you are using version 3.5 and
not 3.4?

common::sense, no matter what, has to bend around -w, because in fact, the
main purpose of common::sense is to work around -w.

> here and there, I'd be using C.  And I don't use C.  (I'd use C++, but there 
> goes huge swaths of memory savings, too.  More if I ever get around to 
> learning wx or Qt or some such behemoth.)

Try gtk+, because that has a working perl interface, so you can switch
back to a language that is actually good at gui logic. OTOH, touching gtk+
from C (and even C++) always has something heroic... :)

-- 
                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      schmorp at schmorp.de
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\