[ruby-core:33260] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4074][Open] mkmf hardcoding prevents ObjC/ObjC++ ruby extensions from building properly

Bug #4074: mkmf hardcoding prevents ObjC/ObjC++ ruby extensions from building properly
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4074

Author: Scott Gonyea
Status: Open, Priority: High
Category: lib
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [x86_64-darwin10.4.0]

Sent to the ruby-core list on Oct 8, 2010.  Submitting patch / ticket.

This is in regards to patch 28765 (Jul 27, 2010).  The patch notes are rather blas辿:

	* lib/mkmf.rb (have_framework): added.
	http://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/444b943e354725bf623a050c88a4a8bd3f926c74

But it's a pretty big change, as it makes writing Ruby Extensions in Objective-C a far less stressful experience.  Prior to this patch, only ".c" files would be compiled with C compiler flags--as it was otherwise hard-coded as such, in mkmf.rb.

I've attached a patch, to make mkmf.rb closer to what I think makes sense. Specifically:

- Adds support for the comedy-option known as Objective-C++ (.mm file extension)
- Banishes the hardcoding of file-extensions, when generating compiler options, as I feel it leads to very unexpected behavior.
- I may simply be ignorant, and I'd love to hear some thoughts...  But it seems that a "COMPILE_OBJC" constant, in mkmf, isn't all that necessary.

ie, I can't really think of a case where you'd want to compile your C and your ObjC code (or C++ and ObjC++), differently from each other.

If it is necessary, then there will be a need for COMPILE_C, COMPILE_CXX, COMPILE_OBJC, and a COMPILE_OBJCXX.  My own opinion, in that case, is mkmf.rb could use some minor changes to make this whole process much more intuitive.


----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org