Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Please allow an external double-conversion #105

Closed
pinotree opened this issue Aug 24, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

Please allow an external double-conversion #105

pinotree opened this issue Aug 24, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@pinotree
Copy link
Contributor

Currently, jiffy embeds a copy of the double-conversion library. This causes a number of issues, for example #67, #82, #97, and #99.
Usually it is packaged, at least on Linux distributions, so it would be nice to have the possibility to build jiffy using an external double-conversion, which could allow to fix architecture issues in double-conversion just once.

@davisp
Copy link
Owner

davisp commented Aug 31, 2015

Well, #82, #97, and #99 were only caused because I insist on using -Werror when compiling so that I get those reports rather than having something subtly maybe broken out in the wild. If memory serves the double conversion library doesn't build with that strict of a compiler setting so likely a system library would've never even noticed the issue. Speaking of which I should submit that PR to get it fixed upstream.

That said if you want to make it possible to disable using the bundled double-conversion code I'd review any PRs. But given that I have to maintain the bundled version anyway I'm not going to elect to do it on my own.

@davisp davisp closed this as completed Aug 31, 2015
@davisp
Copy link
Owner

davisp commented Aug 31, 2015

Whoops. I guess I already did submit that upstream. PR is still open though:

google/double-conversion#15

@pinotree
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, #82, #97, and #99 were only caused because I insist on using -Werror when compiling so that I get those reports rather than having something subtly maybe broken out in the wild.

That's good, sure, but you are effectively redoing the maintenance job done already by double-conversion upstream. #67 shows exactly why: the upstream project gets fixes, but the bundled copies in other projects don't get updated and force people to resubmit fixes.

But given that I have to maintain the bundled version anyway I'm not going to elect to do it on my own.

Then just get rid of the bundled version in favour of the external version only -- less maintenance burden at all on your side.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants