Re: might be a dev list question, getting "deprecated" warnings with perl 5.12

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

*Might* have been a dev question, but it actually is not. Not even close
to it. ;)

On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 17:29 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> Use of "goto" to jump into a construct is deprecated at 
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.2/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Check.pm line 409
> 
> seeing this in a number of places after I upgraded perl to 5.12. 
> 
> Should I submit a bug report or this already known?

Please do NOT file a bug report. It is known. And fixed.

Why is this not a dev question, even though it talks code? Because
bugzilla offers a search feature. Yes, seriously. ;)

I mean, you would have searched for the error message first, before
filing it anyway, wouldn't you? ;)  There are at least two whole
strings, unique to this issue, that immediately jump out to search for.

Bug 6392 [1].

Please check if the patch for 3.3 fixes this for you. Commit revision
link also available in the bug report. If there are any such warnings
left, please feel free to bring it up again here, reopen that bug, or
file a new bug report.


Anyway, thanks for caring and bringing up the issue, Lee. Much
appreciated. :)


[1] https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6392

-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}

Re: might be a dev list question, getting "deprecated" warnings with perl 5.12

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:49 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 8:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: 
> > Why is this not a dev question, even though it talks code? Because
> > bugzilla offers a search feature. Yes, seriously. ;)
> > I mean, you would have searched for the error message first, before
> > filing it anyway, wouldn't you? ;)  There are at least two whole
> > strings, unique to this issue, that immediately jump out to search for.
> 
> indeed, I would have likely done a search. Just for curiousity, I did
> a search for "perl 5.12", "deprecated" and "Check.pm line 409"  (I
> also did a search for the entire error string but that didn't yield
> anything).

Oh, yeah, it might not be that obvious after all.

The secret sauce is, to set the Status drop-down to All [1] (rather than
the default limitation to Open bugs), and to enclose a particular string
for searching in quotes. The former will result in fixed bugs and dupes
to be shown also. The latter will prevent a search for either word, ORed
together, and instead treat the string enclosed in quotes as a single
"word".

Of course there are similar hints for the Advanced Search, but that
requires some more attention and manual tweaks. A notable difference is,
not to use the Summary input field, but the Comment one instead most of
the times.


> funny enough, none of those searches yielded 6392. The closest I got
> was 6488, "Lint errors with Perl 5.12 in AntiVirus.pm", which if one
> looks into it closely does mention 6392.

That would be my comment 1, effectively triaging all the dupes, leaving
the single new issue. ;)


> Unfortunately, we'll never know if I would have checked out 6488,
> based on it's description, or if I would have following the
> striked-out link to 6392... Not sure I would have had enough of a clue
> to do that and hindsight is 20/20.

Good descriptions are key. In this case, I even adjusted the original
Summary to reflect the specific remaining issue. Granted, that makes it
less obvious your issue, but that's why one should also search for
closed bugs...

Striked out -- indicates Fixed. And the quoted context shows your exact
deprecation warning. I guess you would have understood that. ;)  Oh, and
there's that neat "hover over a bug number link" feature, which shows
the Status and Summary of the linked bug.


[1] After all, you're trying to figure out if it has been reported
    before. Which definitely includes bugs already fixed.

-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}

Re: might be a dev list question, getting "deprecated" warnings with perl 5.12

[Lee Dilkie <Le...@Dilkie.com>]

 :)

love your style.

-lee


On 9/26/2010 8:00 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> *Might* have been a dev question, but it actually is not. Not even close
> to it. ;)
>
> On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 17:29 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>> Use of "goto" to jump into a construct is deprecated at 
>> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.2/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Check.pm line 409
>>
>> seeing this in a number of places after I upgraded perl to 5.12. 
>>
>> Should I submit a bug report or this already known?
> Please do NOT file a bug report. It is known. And fixed.

great

> Why is this not a dev question, even though it talks code? Because
> bugzilla offers a search feature. Yes, seriously. ;)
> I mean, you would have searched for the error message first, before
> filing it anyway, wouldn't you? ;)  There are at least two whole
> strings, unique to this issue, that immediately jump out to search for.

indeed, I would have likely done a search. Just for curiousity, I did a
search for "perl 5.12", "deprecated" and "Check.pm line 409"  (I also
did a search for the entire error string but that didn't yield anything).

funny enough, none of those searches yielded 6392. The closest I got was
6488, "Lint errors with Perl 5.12 in AntiVirus.pm", which if one looks
into it closely does mention 6392.

Unfortunately, we'll never know if I would have checked out 6488, based
on it's description, or if I would have following the striked-out link
to 6392... Not sure I would have had enough of a clue to do that and
hindsight is 20/20.

> Bug 6392 [1].
>
> Please check if the patch for 3.3 fixes this for you. Commit revision
> link also available in the bug report. If there are any such warnings
> left, please feel free to bring it up again here, reopen that bug, or
> file a new bug report.
>
>
> Anyway, thanks for caring and bringing up the issue, Lee. Much
> appreciated. :)

that's me, all caring and mushy.. seriously though, I waited before
upgrading perl and after seeing these warnings I waited for an sa
upgrade (freebsd ports) and I didn't see a peep in the users list from
anyone else for a couple of weeks that this was seen elsewhere... so
that's why I posted the query as I wasn't sure this wasn't simply a case
of a config messup at my end.

I wonder if perl 5.12 isn't widely deployed yet (usually freebsd isn't
so leading edge).

>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6392
>