develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from May 2012

Re: Using $(LDLIBPTH) when linking miniperl (was Re: [PATCH for5.004_64] Configure patch Config_64-02-03.diff)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Andy Dougherty
Date:
May 1, 2012 07:31
Subject:
Re: Using $(LDLIBPTH) when linking miniperl (was Re: [PATCH for5.004_64] Configure patch Config_64-02-03.diff)
Message ID:
alpine.DEB.2.00.1205011018390.6334@fractal.phys.lafayette.edu
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:09:36PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 03:03:20PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >                   ^^^^
> > Surely the statute of limitations has expired on that one!
> 
> Probably. :-)
> 
> Sadly the archive doesn't go back before May 1995, so I can't find out the
> "why" on this part of commit
> 
> @@ -173,11 +195,15 @@ $spitshell >>Makefile <<'!NO!SUBS!'
>  miniperl: $& miniperlmain.o $(perllib)
>         $(CC) $(LARGE) $(CLDFLAGS) -o miniperl miniperlmain.o $(perllib) $(libs)
>  
> +miniperlmain.o: miniperlmain.c
> +       $(CCCMD) $(PLDLFLAGS) $*.c
> +
>  perlmain.c: miniperlmain.c config.sh makefile $(static_ext_autoinit)
>         sh writemain $(DYNALOADER) $(static_ext) > tmp
>         sh mv-if-diff tmp perlmain.c
>  
>  perlmain.o: perlmain.c
> +       $(CCCMD) $(PLDLFLAGS) $*.c
>  
>  # The file ext.libs is a list of libraries that must be linked in
>  # for static extensions, e.g. -lm -lgdbm, etc.  The individual
> 
> 
> How come those rules are needed? Surely they're covered by the default
> suffix rule for .o to .c ?

Yes, they should be covered.  Removing them seems to do no harm.  I don't 
know why they are there.

> > Yes, that sounds sane.  Thanks for cleaning up.
> 
> I think it's necessary for a long term future. Without trying to fight for
> simplification where it's actually possible, we're going to end up so mired
> in complexity that we'll never be able to fix something without introducing
> more bugs in an uncontrolled chain reaction.

I thought we passed that threshold long ago.  Anyway, yes, cleaning up is 
good.

The biggest problem is that different pieces were submitted by
different porters solving similar problems on different systems in 
very different ways.  Some were easier to integrate than others.
(See, for example, the os2 Makefile.SHs fragments.)

Anyway, cleanup is good.  Have the appropriate amount of fun.

-- 
    Andy Dougherty		doughera@lafayette.edu

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About