Problem in Including a header file in PerlXS using h2xs

manojghosh has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I have a hstandard header file of a standard product <cryptoki.h>. now i want to use the utility h2xs to create a XS module to use the C program files. but when executing it is giving errors :

manoj@manoj-Vostro-230:~/Desktop/example/crypto$ h2xs -n genseckey -A 
+-O -x -F '-I ../' cryptoki.h   
Defaulting to backwards compatibility with perl 5.10.1
If you intend this module to be compatible with earlier perl versions,
+ please
specify a minimum perl version with the -b option.  

Writing genseckey/ppport.h  
Scanning typemaps...  
 Scanning /usr/share/perl/5.10/ExtUtils/typemap  
Scanning cryptoki.h for functions...  
panic: multiple types without intervening comma in  
     CK_RV(* CK_NOTIFY)(  
  CK_SESSION_HANDLE hSession,  
  CK_NOTIFICATION event,  
  CK_VOID_PTR pApplication  
)  
whited-out as  
     CK_RV(*   CK_NOTIFY)(                                            
+                                         )
[download]

Comment on Problem in Including a header file in PerlXS using h2xs Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Problem in Including a header file in PerlXS using h2xs by Eliya (Vicar) on Apr 19, 2011 at 12:39 UTC
The panic message originates in the module C::Scan, which is being used under the hood when you specify the `-x` option to `h2xs`. The module has a number of known "issues" (and is unmaintained — last release 2001), which is why ModPerl::CScan was forked for use within mod_perl. You could try to install ModPerl::CScan separately and replace all occurrences of `"C::Scan"` in (a copy of!) `h2xs` with `"ModPerl::CScan"`, and see if it helps...	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Problem in Including a header file in PerlXS using h2xs by vkon (Curate) on Apr 19, 2011 at 12:20 UTC
this "panic" word makes me certainly think it is a time to file a bug report, and/or report to perl5-porters@perl.org Right now porters are busy with releasing 5.14.0, so answer could be not quick, but surely they better be informed about your finding. :)	[reply]