Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Best way to implement Inline::C/Pure Perl function in a module?

by syphilis (Canon)
on Oct 26, 2012 at 00:06 UTC ( #1000973=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Best way to implement Inline::C/Pure Perl function in a module?

I think I would do it thusly:

use strict; use warnings; eval { require Inline; Inline->import (C => Config => BUILD_NOISY => 1); require Inline; Inline->import (C =><<' EOC'); int foo() { warn("Using Inline\n"); return 42; } EOC }; # If Inline is unavailable, foo() simply calls # the sub bar() pure perl implementation. if($@) { *foo =\&bar; } sub bar { warn("Using Pure Perl Implementation\n"); return 42; } my $x = foo(); print "$x\n";
If Inline::C is not available, that uses the pure-perl implementation of foo() and outputs:
Using Pure Perl Implementation 42
Otherwise, it uses the the Inline::C implementation of foo() and outputs:
Using Inline 42
NOTE: Running that script with Inline support will also output the C compilation report - but only for the *first* running, of course.
Note also that those who have Inline::C can still access the pure-perl implementation of foo() if they wish, by directly calling bar().

Cheers,
Rob


Comment on Re: Best way to implement Inline::C/Pure Perl function in a module?
Select or Download Code
Re^2: Best way to implement Inline::C/Pure Perl function in a module?
by uG (Scribe) on Oct 26, 2012 at 03:09 UTC

    Of all the people to who could have answered :)

    I applied this method to my Makefile.PL as well. I was hoping to get the compile out of the way immediately, but I don't think Module::Install likes it. I'm not sure if I should keep playing around with it or just go back to ExtUtils...

    make: *** No rule to make target `Damerau.inl', needed by `pure_all'. Stop.

    use inc::Module::Install; name 'Some-Module'; all_from 'lib/SomeModule.pm'; readme_from 'lib/SomeModule.pm', 1; auto_manifest; auto_set_repository; auto_license; test_requires 'Test::More'; recommends 'Inline::C'; eval { require Inline; Inline->import( C => Config => BUILD_NOISY => 1 ); }; if($@) { WriteAll(); } else { WriteAll( inline => 1 ); }
      I applied this method to my Makefile.PL as well

      I think that all you can really do at the Makefile.PL stage is to eval{require Inline::C}; and use the result of that to determine whether Inline is available.
      Then you need to have 2 versions of SomeModule.pm - one rendition that caters for the availability of Inline, and one that caters for the absence of Inline support.

      One other feature of the approach I initially outlined is that Inline::C can be installed *after* SomeModule.pm has been installed, and the Inline::C version of your ed() function is then immediately available - without any need to build/install SomeModule.pm all over again.
      Of course, it does mean that the final compilation of the C code won't take place until the first time that SomeModule.pm has been loaded, *after* make install has been run.

      Other options include doing away with the Inline dependency completely and just re-structuring your module as a normal type of XS distro. (I use InlineX::C2XS for that.)

      I've no experience with inc/Module/Install ... except for some bad experiences where it has been thrust upon me by some module that I happen to be wanting to install.

      Cheers,
      Rob

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1000973]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-07-25 11:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (170 votes), past polls