On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Robert Roessler wrote:
> > There is a 7.3 release coming out, possibly even today. It has already been
> > changed back. The release candidate has been around for nearly a week since
> > the last comment, so I think it is time to go public.
>
> I would *really* have liked to see this before it was released... but the
> pcre.org site shows no "betas" or "RCs". :(
The pcre.org site is run by a PCRE fan. All my stuff is on
ftp://ftp.csx.cam.ac.uk/pub/software/programming/pcre/
where the RCs were in a Testing directory. There is now a pcre-dev
mailing list at pcre-dev@??? where there are discussions and I
announce stuff such as RCs. I'm copying this message there.
> Yes, the instance I mention above was switched back to the "" form - but the
> former SINGLE #include "config.h" in pcre_internal.h has now apparently been
> replaced by 22 #include <config.h> uses across the whole project.
If you look at the mailing list archives you'll see discussion about
this. I questioned it, but Daniel argued that it was the "standard" and
recommended way to go, to ensure that #include config.h appeared *at
the very start* of every code module, before anything else that might be
relying on what was set in the config. We also had the < vs "
discussion; I must confess to not being totally convinced, and also I
guess it's my fault for not noticing the new #includes use < rather than
".
I suspect I can't win on this, though. Perhaps Robert and Daniel can
discuss on the list and come to some conclusion. I imagine it's all to
do with auto vs manual building, and also building in other (non-source)
directories comes into it as well. This is an area I know little about.
> I am sorry if I come across as frustrated, but the general lack of
> transparency (read "posted RCs" or equivalent) has always seemed
> unfortunate... also, I have in the past offered to help with your Windows
> releases, which I think could have avoided a certain amount of
> "unpleasantness" with the DLL build issues. Of course, I find the Windows
> linker relatively easy to deal with, whereas I find gcc/ld insanely overly
> complex... and I am still greatly appreciative of the help you gave me 7
> months ago in that area. :)
I take the blame. I remember you, of course. I should have been more
pro-active and told you when the pcre-dev mailing list was set up.
Apologies. I'm getting old and absent-minded. (I am retiring from my job
at the end of September, though I intend to continue to work on PCRE for
a little while longer.) Having said that, the change to the build
system for 7.1 was inended to "regularize" things so that it was
straightforward to build on Windows. As I know nothing about Windows, I
am reliant on what other people tell me should be done. I think Daniel,
if he joins in this thread, will extol the virtues of CMake for use on
Windows.
> Perhaps 7.3 can still be "fixed"? In any case, let me know if I can help with
> anything.
I have no doubt there will be a 7.4...
> Actually, it is worse than what I already said... of course, you probably
> already know this by now. :|
No, you are the first to comment.
> Each of the newly added '#include <config.h>' is "protected" by a '#ifdef
> HAVE_CONFIG_H' - which presumably should be '#ifndef'?
I don't think so... Daniel? Is this a valid comment? Everything works
fine on Unix, and others seem to have used the RCs on Windows.
> Not to mention the '# ifdef...' inside the '#ifndef DFTABLES' in
> pcre_maketables.c...
>
> Is your SVN/CVS/other server publicly visible? If it is on sourceforge, my
> developer login there is rdaneelolivaw.
svn co svn://vcs.exim.org/pcre/code/trunk pcre
Philip
--
Philip Hazel, University of Cambridge Computing Service.
