Re: [HACKERS] pl/perl extension fails on Windows

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Assuming that the Perl crew know what they're doing and this list is
>>> complete, I notice that not one of the symbols they show as relevant
>>> starts with an underscore.  So I'm thinking that my previous semi-
>>> joking idea of absorbing only -D switches for names that *don't*
>>> start with an underscore was actually a good solution.
>
>> Okay, as per your suggestion, I have modified my earlier patches that
>> imports the -D switches used by perl into plperl accordingly i.e. it
>> now ignores the switches whose name starts with underscore. Please
>> find plperl_win_v3 and plperl_linux_v2 patches attached with this
>> email.
>
> OK, thanks.  I've pushed the XSUB/dTHX patch after another round of
> code-reading and some minor comment improvements; we'll soon see
> what the buildfarm thinks of it.  In the meantime I'll work on these
> two patches.

Sure, Thanks a lot.

>
>>> (BTW, you never did tell us exactly what defines you're getting
>>> out of Perl's flags on the problem installation.)
>
>> I am really sorry about that. I just missed that in my earlier email.
>> Here are the defines used in the perl where i could reproduce the
>> issue,
>
>> C:\Users\ashu>perl -MConfig -e "print $Config{ccflags}"
>> -nologo -GF -W3 -O1 -MD -Zi -DNDEBUG -GL -fp:precise -DWIN32
>> -D_CONSOLE -DNO_STRICT -DWIN64 -DCONSERVATIVE  -DUSE_SITECUSTOMIZE
>> -DPERL_TEXTMODE_SCRIPTS -DPERL_IMPLICIT_CONTEXT -DPERL_IMPLICIT_SYS
>
> Uh-huh.  So the issue is indeed that they're injecting PERL_IMPLICIT_SYS
> via a command-line #define rather than putting it into perl's config.h,
> and that results in a change in the apparent size of the PerlInterp
> struct (because of IMem and friends).

Yes, That's right. We would have seen different result if the
PERL_IMPLICIT_SYS would not have been defined globally.

We'd expected as much, but it's
> good to have clear confirmation.

That's right. It is always good to have a clear confirmation. Thanks.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com