Re^6: [C Question] Determine if gcc provides erfl() function

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: [C Question] Determine if gcc provides erfl() function by syphilis (Archbishop) on Jun 08, 2015 at 13:13 UTC
I'll reply to this post, giving details of the solution I used when I find that solution. Avoiding constants in the test-executable seems to have done the trick, and I can understand how that would have worked. At least, there have been no FAIL reports from any NetBSD machines (and only one FAIL all up.). However, I was expecting that the NetBSD FAIL reports should have been replaced with UNKNOWN NetBSD reports. The Makefile.PL should be doing an "exit 0;", and an "exit 0;" from the Makefile.PL is supposed to result in an UNKNOWN report, isn't it ? But there have been no reports at all from NetBSD. So, I don't really know that my current version of the module has even been looked at by a NetBSD machine. (In the past, the NetBSD reports have begun filtering through within 24 hours, but that doesn't really count for much.) Cheers, Rob	[reply]
Re^8: [C Question] Determine if gcc provides erfl() function by Anonymous Monk on Jun 08, 2015 at 21:05 UTC
Suppose the test was to merely pass a flag like `-DMISSING_foo`, and that in your XS you'd provide a respective stub instead of the missing function? (The stub would raise an exception ie die.) Is the lack of powl/erfl so critical that there'd be no point in providing the package without them?	[reply]
Re^9: [C Question] Determine if gcc provides erfl() function by syphilis (Archbishop) on Jun 09, 2015 at 15:21 UTC
Is the lack of powl/erfl so critical that there'd be no point in providing the package without them? Probably not, though do we know that there aren't any more missing symbols for which I'd only have to write additional stubs ? I'll try doing as you suggest when I've got some time, and see how it pans out. Cheers, Rob	[reply]