[#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: "Michal Suchanek" <hramrach@...>
Date: 2007-04-18 11:02:21 UTC
List: ruby-core #10958
On 4/16/07, nobu@ruby-lang.org <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hello
>
> Do you consider that -L. always should take precedence to other
> linker flags?
Yes, because otherwise libraries already in the system could be linked
instead of the libraries in the build directory. There could be
similar problem with extension build that is not apparent because the
libraries are compatible enough.
>
>
> 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)
>
>

This patch fixes my build issue and appears better than just swapping the flags.

Thanks

Michal

In This Thread