Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/27/2018 07:23 PM:
Dne 27.7.2018 v 12:11 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 26.7.2018 v 15:11 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Sending to mailing list:
Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/26/2018 09:18 PM:
Dne 26.7.2018 v 13:40 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/26/2018 06:28 PM:
Hi,
Ruby currently fails to build due to removal of GCC from buildroot.
The
build failure is due to one test case [1] which fails now and which
should be probably fixed to pass even without GCC.
However, digging into this, I wonder if Ruby should have "BR: gcc" or
"BR: gcc-c++". The thing is, that Ruby is checking presence of C++
compiler during its configuration phase.
ruby-libs contains:
/usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:180: CONFIG["CXXFLAGS"] = "-O2 -g -pipe
-Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection"
/usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:181: CONFIG["CXX"] = "g++"
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:74: CXX_EXT = %w[cc mm cxx cpp]
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:76: CXX_EXT.concat(%w[C])
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:82: SRC_EXT = C_EXT + CXX_EXT
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1830: $CXXFLAGS += " " << cflags
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1963:CXX = #{CONFIG['CXX']}
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1984:CXXFLAGS = $(CCDLFLAGS) #$CXXFLAGS
$(ARCH_FLAG)
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2429: command = compile_command %
COMPILE_CXX
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2430: asm_command =
compile_command.sub(/compiling/, 'translating') % ASSEMBLE_CXX
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2431: CXX_EXT.each do |e|
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2458: if
srcs.any?(&%r"\.(?:#{CXX_EXT.join('|')})\z".method(:===))
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2510: $CXXFLAGS = (with_config("cxxflags",
arg_config("CXXFLAGS", config["CXXFLAGS"]))||'').dup
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2666: COMPILE_CXX =
config_string('COMPILE_CXX') || '$(CXX) $(INCFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS)
$(CXXFLAGS) $(COUTFLAG)$@ -c $(CSRCFLAG)$<'
/usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2676: ASSEMBLE_CXX =
config_string('ASSEMBLE_CXX') || COMPILE_CXX.sub(/(?<=\s)-c(?=\s)/,
'-S')
So it is quite reasonable that ruby compilation checks
CXX compiler.
The ticket [1] I referenced even linked to commit which introduced some
of these lines [10]. However, this says nothing about usage of this
code. Neither the ruby-dev discussion provides more information [11].
So is there some extension library which uses results of these checks?
Frankly I'd be much happier if this was removed from upstream, since why
special case C++, but not Rust for example. I am looking for some
evidence ....
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1124633
https://github.com/knu/ruby-unf_ext/blob/master/ext/unf_ext/extconf.rb#L31
Ups, sorry, I forgot test it prior issuing the latest build (I was happy
enough that I workarounded the OpenSSL test failures) :(
However testing the build now, rubygem-unf_ext builds just fine. "gem
install unf_ext" works fine as well. Also, the RbConfig contains the CXX
variables referred in the extconf.rb:
~~~
$ rpm -q ruby-libs
ruby-libs-2.5.1-94.fc29.x86_64
$ ruby -r rbconfig -e "RbConfig::CONFIG.each {|c| p c}" | grep CXX
["configure_args", " '--build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
'--host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' '--program-prefix='
'--disable-dependency-tracking' '--prefix=/usr' '--exec-prefix=/usr'
'--bindir=/usr/bin' '--sbindir=/usr/sbin' '--sysconfdir=/etc'
'--datadir=/usr/share' '--includedir=/usr/include' '--libdir=/usr/lib64'
'--libexecdir=/usr/libexec' '--localstatedir=/var'
'--sharedstatedir=/var/lib' '--mandir=/usr/share/man'
'--infodir=/usr/share/info' '--with-rubylibprefix=/usr/share/ruby'
'--with-archlibdir=/usr/lib64' '--with-rubyarchprefix=/usr/lib64/ruby'
'--with-sitedir=/usr/local/share/ruby/site_ruby'
'--with-sitearchdir=/usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby'
'--with-vendordir=/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby'
'--with-vendorarchdir=/usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby'
'--with-rubyhdrdir=/usr/include' '--with-rubyarchhdrdir=/usr/include'
'--with-sitearchhdrdir=$(sitehdrdir)/$(arch)'
'--with-vendorarchhdrdir=$(vendorhdrdir)/$(arch)'
'--with-rubygemsdir=/usr/share/rubygems' '--with-ruby-pc=ruby.pc'
'--with-compress-debug-sections=no' '--disable-rpath' '--enable-shared'
'--with-ruby-version=' '--enable-multiarch'
'--with-prelude=./abrt_prelude.rb' 'build_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
'host_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection'
'LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld' 'CXXFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe
-Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection'"]
["CXXFLAGS", "-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection"]
["CXX", "g++"]
["CFLAGS", "-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection
-fPIC"]
~~~
Actually, this makes me even less worried, because for RPM build, we can
use %{optflags} and we are relatively safe here, but I was more worried
about pure "gem install" scenario.
Vít
This brings me to another question, shouldn't we add "cxxflags" here?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/7c494340f9b797e5a8ce2f8dd8fd8ece65fe755e/f/macros.rubygems#_24
I guess it is better.
Regards,
Mamoru
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3LTI2MQVBFNNLGLLA5JTYPNAFP7SQGAI/
