[#10853] Why limit class def to a constant or colon node? — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Is there a historical reason why I can't do something like these:

12 messages 2007/04/03

[#10933] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #10140, was opened at 2007-04-16 17:32

10 messages 2007/04/16
[#10934] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — nobu@... 2007/04/16

Hi,

[#10960] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...> 2007/04/18

On 4/16/07, nobu@ruby-lang.org <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#10967] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/04/19

Hi,

[#10970] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed — "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...> 2007/04/19

On 4/19/07, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:> Hi,>> At Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:21:44 +0900,> Michal Suchanek wrote in [ruby-core:10960]:> > Yes. And this should also apply to extensions. The mkmf tests are now> > fine but the extension is linked with -L/sw/lib before -L../..>> Indeed.>>> Index: configure.in> ===================================================================> --- configure.in (revision 12191)> +++ configure.in (working copy)> @@ -1385,5 +1385,4 @@ if test "$enable_rpath" = yes; then> fi>> -LDFLAGS="-L. $LDFLAGS"> AC_SUBST(ARCHFILE)>This would break the previous fix so I did not even try to apply this ^

[#11003] miniruby loads extensions from already installed ruby — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #10303, was opened at 2007-04-23 10:44

10 messages 2007/04/23

[#11025] gsub with backslash characters in replacement string — "Adam Bozanich" <adam.boz@...>

Hello, spotted this one the other day:

10 messages 2007/04/26

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-10140 ] Cannot build with extra library path if previous version already installed

From: nobu@...
Date: 2007-04-16 19:17:59 UTC
List: ruby-core #10934
Hi,

At Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:32:51 +0900,
Michal Suchanek wrote in [ruby-core:10933]:
> I tried building with LDFLAGS=-L/sw/lib which is the standard
> way to build a package with libraries outside of system
> library locations.
> 
> There is apparently already a libruby_static in there because
> the build has failed on an undefined symbol which was defined
> in ./libruby_static.a
> 
> I modified the Makefile so that it puts XLDFLAGS before
> LDFLAGS. That way I get -L. -L/sw/lib and the build
> works. However, if XLDFLAGS contained some linker options
> meant to override options in LDFLAGS it would not work this
> way.

Do you consider that -L. always should take precedence to other
linker flags?


Index: configure.in
===================================================================
--- configure.in	(revision 12175)
+++ configure.in	(working copy)
@@ -150,4 +150,9 @@ fi
 AC_PROG_CC
 AC_PROG_GCC_TRADITIONAL
+if test "$GCC" = yes; then
+    linker_flag=-Wl,
+else
+    linker_flag=
+fi
 
 RUBY_PROG_GNU_LD
@@ -1392,12 +1397,8 @@ if test "$enable_shared" = 'yes'; then
 fi
 if test "$enable_rpath" = yes; then
-    if test "$GCC" = yes; then
-       LIBRUBYARG_SHARED='-Wl,-R -Wl,$(libdir) -L$(libdir) -L. '"$LIBRUBYARG_SHARED"
-    else
-       LIBRUBYARG_SHARED='-R $(libdir) -L$(libdir) -L. '"$LIBRUBYARG_SHARED"
-    fi
+    LIBRUBYARG_SHARED="${linker_flag}-R ${linker_flag}\$(libdir) -L. -L\$(libdir) $LIBRUBYARG_SHARED"
 fi
 
-XLDFLAGS="$XLDFLAGS -L."
+LDFLAGS="-L. $LDFLAGS"
 AC_SUBST(ARCHFILE)
 


-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread