[#1711] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>

Tanaka Akira:

22 messages 2003/11/19
[#1737] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/11/23

[#1739] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/11/23

[#1740] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/23

On Sunday 23 November 2003 08:26 pm, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

[#1741] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/11/23

[#1718] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Elliott Hughes <ehughes@...>

22 messages 2003/11/21
[#1722] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/22

In article <AD4480A509455343AEFACCC231BA850F17C434@ukexchange>,

[#1724] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/22

On Saturday 22 November 2003 04:34 pm, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1726] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/23

In article <200311221024.05642.transami@runbox.com>,

[#1731] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/23

On Sunday 23 November 2003 02:24 am, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1732] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/23

In article <200311230325.21687.transami@runbox.com>,

[#1733] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/23

On Sunday 23 November 2003 03:10 pm, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1750] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org> 2003/11/24

In article <200311230648.41003.transami@runbox.com>,

[#1759] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — Sean E Russell <ser@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 03:19, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#1762] Re: open-uri patch, added progress_proc hook — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2003/11/24

Sean E Russell [mailto:ser@germane-software.com] wrote:

[#1753] gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — Richard Kilmer <rich@...>

We still encountered a gc_sweep in our use of Ruby 1.8 on Linux (v8).

16 messages 2003/11/24
[#1754] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/24

>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:

[#1757] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2003/11/24

Yes, there are several (Ruby) threads working during this gc_sweep.

[#1758] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — ts <decoux@...> 2003/11/24

>>>>> "R" == Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> writes:

[#1763] Re: gc_sweep under 1.8 ... not syck.so — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2003/11/24

of course this effects 300 machines ;-)

[#1755] Re: Controlled block variables — Jamis Buck <jgb3@...>

On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 02:04, T. Onoma wrote:

26 messages 2003/11/24
[#1756] Re: Controlled block variables — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 05:22 pm, Jamis Buck wrote:

[#1760] Re: Controlled block variables — Sean E Russell <ser@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 11:51, T. Onoma wrote:

[#1761] Re: Controlled block variables — "T. Onoma" <transami@...> 2003/11/24

On Monday 24 November 2003 06:40 pm, Sean E Russell wrote:

Re: * configure.in: keep ARCH_FLAG separate. export ARCH_FLAG.

From: WATANABE Hirofumi <eban@...>
Date: 2003-11-30 13:57:39 UTC
List: ruby-core #1824
Hi,

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

> > eban        Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:27:35 +0000
>  >  	nextstep*)	: ${LDSHARED='cc -r -nostdlib'}
>  >  			LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -u libsys_s"
>  > -			DLDFLAGS="$DLDFLAGS $ARCH_FLAG"
>  >  			rb_cv_dlopen=yes ;;
>  >  	openstep*)	: ${LDSHARED='cc -dynamic -bundle ...
>  >  			: ${LDFLAGS=""}
>  > -			DLDFLAGS="$DLDFLAGS $ARCH_FLAG"
>  >  			rb_cv_dlopen=yes ;;
>  >  	rhapsody*)	: $LDSHARED='cc -dynamic -bundle ...
>  >  			: ${LDFLAGS=""}
>  > -			DLDFLAGS="$DLDFLAGS $ARCH_FLAG"
>  >  			rb_cv_dlopen=yes ;;
>  >  	darwin*)	: ${LDSHARED='cc -dynamic -bundle ...
>  >  			: ${LDFLAGS=""}
>  > -			DLDFLAGS="$DLDFLAGS $ARCH_FLAG"
> 
> I am afraid that I do not understand why you made this change. 
> Unfortunately, removing the DLDFLAGS assignments for the Apple/NeXT 
> platforms breaks builds when --enable-fat-binary is used.  ARCH_FLAGS is 
> required at both compilation and link time, thus this change is 
> unwarranted since it causes extensions to be linked incorrectly.

I forgot add ARCH_FLAG to DLDFLAGS in lib/mkmf.rb.
Please check this out.

-- 
eban

Index: lib/mkmf.rb
===================================================================
RCS file: /src/ruby/lib/mkmf.rb,v
retrieving revision 1.158
diff -u -1 -r1.158 mkmf.rb
--- lib/mkmf.rb	30 Nov 2003 11:27:34 -0000	1.158
+++ lib/mkmf.rb	30 Nov 2003 13:53:36 -0000
@@ -726,3 +726,3 @@
 CXXFLAGS = $(CFLAGS) #{CONFIG['CXXFLAGS']}
-DLDFLAGS = #$LDFLAGS #{CONFIG['DLDFLAGS']} #$DLDFLAGS
+DLDFLAGS = #$LDFLAGS #{CONFIG['DLDFLAGS']} #$DLDFLAGS #$ARCH_FLAG
 LDSHARED = #{CONFIG['LDSHARED']}

In This Thread