I don't see why you would need any changes.
to replace ADD_FUNCTION() to add_function_constant() to workaround this change.
That seems like a very strange work around to me. The obvious one is to instead do a wrapper like the one that pike -x module would.
NB: I also think those wrappers are messy and should disappear again. I think it's better to let C modules be objects (in the static case too) and perhaps have a magic constant to let them tell that they don't want to be cloned.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2004-03-29 13:22: Subject: Re: ADD_FUNCTION() macro on pike 7.5 ?
Le 27 mars 04, à 20:20, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike (-) developers forum a écrit :
This is really bad... This make all pike C modules now incompatible between pike version... ;(
Not for normal usage; a corresponding .pmod is automatically generated.
normal usage yes... eg pike C modules generated *inside* pike source code.
but outside that, eg custom pike C modules made (hardly) by hand, the .pmod is not automatically generated.
Very bad thing for pexts, and all hardly developped pike modules in C...
So bad there is no warning on this important code change...
We will add lots of #ifdef but, this is bad ;(
I don't see why you would need any changes.
to replace ADD_FUNCTION() to add_function_constant() to workaround this change.
NB: The reason for the change is to reduce the differences between dynamic and static modules.
This one is good.... but external (home made) modules are allways dynamic modules (eg .so)...
/Xavier
Xavier Beaudouin - Unix System Administrator & Projects Leader. President of Kazar Organization : http://www.kazar.net/ Please visit http://caudium.net/, home of Caudium & Camas projects
/ Brevbäraren