[#3726] Fixnum#clone and Float#clone raise different exceptions — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

15 messages 2004/11/12
[#3749] Re: Fixnum#clone and Float#clone raise different exceptions — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2004/11/16

Hi --

[#3751] Re: Fixnum#clone and Float#clone raise different exceptions — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2004/11/16

Hi,

[#3752] Re: Fixnum#clone and Float#clone raise different exceptions — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2004/11/16

Hi --

[#3785] The latest 1.8.2 cvs prints parse error when starting extension compiling — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

13 messages 2004/11/23
[#3787] Re: The latest 1.8.2 cvs prints parse error when starting extension compiling — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...> 2004/11/23

mkmf.rb

From: Charles Mills <cmills@...>
Date: 2004-11-19 16:32:31 UTC
List: ruby-core #3773
Would it make sense to have $LOCAL_LIBS as a dependency for the DLLIB 
and STATIC_LIB targets as show below?

$(DLLIB): $(OBJS) $(LOCAL_LIBS)
   @-$(RM) $@
   $(LDSHARED) $(DLDFLAGS) $(LIBPATH) -o $(DLLIB) $(OBJS) $(LOCAL_LIBS) 
$(LIBS)

$(STATIC_LIB): $(OBJS) $(LOCAL_LIBS)
   $(AR) cru $@ $(OBJS)
   @-ranlib $(DLLIB) 2> /dev/null || true

The advantages I see are that make will rebuild the target if one of 
the local libs is updated.  Also the user can add make rules for the 
local libs in "depends".

This may break some peoples extensions though.  (But I don't think many 
people use $LOCAL_LIBS.)

-Charlie


In This Thread

Prev Next