Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Date: 2017-07-30 16:50:10
Message-ID: 25937.1501433410@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, OK, but I'd still like to tweak configure so that it records
>> an absolute path for prove rather than just setting PROVE=prove.
>> That way you'd at least be able to tell from the configure log
>> whether you are possibly at risk.

> That's an improvement.

The reason it does that seems to be that we use AC_CHECK_PROGS
rather than AC_PATH_PROGS for locating "prove". I can see no
particular consistency to the decisions made in configure.in
about which to use:

AC_CHECK_PROGS(GCOV, gcov)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(LCOV, lcov)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(GENHTML, genhtml)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(DTRACE, dtrace)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(XML2_CONFIG, xml2-config)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(DBTOEPUB, dbtoepub)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(XMLLINT, xmllint)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(XSLTPROC, xsltproc)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(OSX, [osx sgml2xml sx])
AC_CHECK_PROGS(FOP, fop)
AC_CHECK_PROGS(PROVE, prove)

versus

AC_PATH_PROG(TAR, tar)
PGAC_PATH_BISON
PGAC_PATH_FLEX
PGAC_PATH_PERL
PGAC_PATH_PYTHON
AC_PATH_PROG(ZIC, zic)
PGAC_PATH_TCLCONFIGSH([$with_tclconfig])

I'm tempted to propose that we switch *all* of these uses of
AC_CHECK_PROGS to AC_PATH_PROGS.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mengxing Liu 2017-07-30 16:53:02 Re: [GSOC] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions
Previous Message Noah Misch 2017-07-30 16:30:54 Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?