From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 23 04:58:49 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A99216A4CE for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:58:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lakermmtao04.cox.net (lakermmtao04.cox.net [68.230.240.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77B543D55 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:58:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from mezz.mezzweb.com ([68.103.32.140]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050223045846.IRIT28092.lakermmtao04.cox.net@mezz.mezzweb.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:58:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:59:35 -0600 To: "Garance A Drosihn" References: <64348.207.219.213.162.1109011818.squirrel@207.219.213.162> <20050221194954.GA49438@xor.obsecurity.org> <6a2d0a658b1cfe9503183eb978e4e2d6@snsonline.net> From: "Jeremy Messenger" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Linux, build 955) cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: ruby18-1.8.2_2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:58:49 -0000 On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:11:28 -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 3:28 PM -0600 2/22/05, Jeremy Messenger wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >>> >>> This still runs into a core-dump in mini-ruby on Sparc64, >>> 6.x-current. The present ruby18 port (ruby-1.8.2_2) also >>> coredumps. The previous port (ruby-1.8.2_1) does compile >>> and work on sparc64. >> >> What will it happens if you redo a clean ruby18, but only apply >> Makefile patch? Only difference between ruby-1.8.2_1 and patch >> are multi-patches from Debian/Gentoo and get ruby to use the >> ${PTHREAD_*}. Can -lc and ${PTHREAD_LIBS} be use at the same >> time? > > It seems there are two different issues. > > When it comes to the present port (ruby-1.8.2_2), it compiles > fine on sparc64 if I change one line in the Makefile: Oh, I thought you mean by ruby-1.8.2_1... > .include > -.if ${OSVERSION} >= 502102 > +.if ${OSVERSION} >= 502102 && ${ARCH} != "sparc64" > RUBY_ENABLE_PTHREAD?= public demand > .endif This should be no difference with with my patch, because my patch doesn't enable pthread stuff. I removed the pthread stuff because it causes few more troubles. > That would be the quickest and safest fix when it comes to the > sparc64 platform. > > - - - - > When it comes to the version with the changes you posted, it > *compiles* fine on sparc64 if I remove the file: > > files/patch-ruby-1.6.8-fix-x86_64 > > which is one of the patches that you added. However, while that > gets it to compile, the result then fails a 'make test' done in > the work/ruby-1.8.2 directory. So I also had to change a few > lines in what you had in the makefile. Note that if I do *just* > the makefile changes, I still get the coredump. So the above > file still needs to be removed in addition to the makefile changes. I have decided to remove all patches that were from Debian and Gentoo, I get several emails with good points. My reason of add patches was to try to see if it will solve the enable threads support on multi-platform. My ruby28.diff is such smaller now. > The patch that I end up with is at: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~gad/ports/ruby18+mezz+gad_3.diff > > My patch is about the same as your last patch, minus the > patch-ruby-1.6.8-fix-x86_64 file, plus my changes to the Makefile. This is very weird.. Why does sparc64 dislike the -pthread? sparc64 doesn't has libpthread support? My lastest patch will removing -lc after I have learned, so I have no idea if it will actually make the difference on sparc64 but it will be on FreeBSD 4.x. > I compiled and tested this on powerpc and sparc64. I haven't done > much else testing on it. I realize that seems lame, but my sparc64 > system is the slowest machine I have. As it was, this minor change > took me about six hours to come up with... Thanks a lot for test! > This probably needs much more testing before being committed, in > which case it might be a good idea to commit the first change that > I described (probably adding && ${ARCH} != "amd64" to it), just so > people can build ruby until we can come up with a full-tested patch > for all the platforms. I don't think it needs to add amd64 like sparc64 needs, because I get many reports that it works fine with amd64 so far. Cheers, Mezz -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org