Re: [Fxruby-users] My fox build segfaults on Solaris 9 gcc.

[Hugh S. S. E. E. <hg...@dm...>]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, jeroen wrote:

> On Tuesday 06 July 2004 10:26 am, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
>> The last thing I get on building the Fox library is
>>
>> g++ -shared  FX4Splitter.lo FXAccelTable.lo FXApp.lo
>> FXArrowButton.lo FXBMPIcon.lo FXBMPImage.lo FXBitmap.lo
         [....]
>> -ldl -lpthread -ljpeg -lpng -lz -lbz2 -lm -lGL -lGLU -lc
>> -Wl,-soname -Wl,libFOX-1.2.so.0 -o .libs/libFOX-1.2.so.0.0.6
>> collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation Fault], core
>> dumped
>> gmake[1]: *** [libFOX-1.2.la] Error 1
>> gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/export/home/Scratch/hgs/fox-1.2.6/src'
>> gmake: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
>>
>> The only thing that seems obvious to me is to ensure that the LD
>> used is gnu ld and not the Sun one.  Given this is invoked by g++,
>> how might I be certain about this?  It is not defined in the (top)
>> Makefile.  Anything else I should look out for?
>
> I keep up with FOX compiling on SUN; it should compile out of the
> box using SUN's own compiler.  If you have a problem with compiling

I'll give that a go, but Ruby compiles with GCC, so will the
libraries interoperate?  There are dire warnings about this in the
changes docs for GCC, and I don't know enough to test for the
ramificiations in any particular case.

> using GCC, my first suggestion is to make sure GCC is properly
> installed [its a complex beast!].  Make sure you have a recent

I believe it is.  It does fail some tests when built, but I can
compile most things with it [pine, exim, Ruby, Perl,...].  I know of
no post-install diag/test suite I could use but would be glad to
hear about one.  Given that many `make check` tests fail but even
unexpected failures are to be expected I think the chances of such a
thing coming into being are slim.

> GCC, and that your paths are set properly [in particular, GCC's

3.3.2.  I've avoided 3.4.0 because it is .0, but now 3.4.1 is out I
may try building that.

> installation typically includes "repaired" header files which may
> be necessary].

Can you explicitly tell me how to test for these things?  I've not
even been able to extract which linker it is using from GCC or G++.
It occurs to me that I might get something out of strace, but I get
a lot of information out of that! :-)
>
> On some machines you need to use native linker, and some GNU ld; I
> don't know what the recommendation is for the SPARC target.

ld: /usr/ccs/bin/ld /usr/lib/ld.so /usr/lib/ld /usr/ucb/ld /usr/local/bin/ld
and sum says they are all different, the last being Gnu ld
41228 18 /usr/ccs/bin/ld
12100 4 /usr/ucb/ld
40682 3969 /usr/local/bin/ld

and Sun Workshop compiler doesn't seem to have an ld in the same
dir as the compiler.

>
> SUN has a collection of GNU software on their site, I don't know

Yes, I think we used that gcc to build this one.

> if this includes GCC but if it does then that might be helpful,


Is there any way to test this though?  I could spend ages fiddling
with different GCC's, different versions of binutils, etc, and when
it works I still won't know why.

> assuming the SUN developers are more on top of this situation that
> we are.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> 		- Jeroen
>
         Thank you,
         Hugh