Yeah, I’ll do that tonight if it hasn’t already been done.

Cheers,
Rob

From: Ingy dot Net 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:28 AM
To: Sisyphus 
Cc: demerphq ; inline 
Subject: Re: undefined symbol: PL_stack_sp
Can someone turn this into an issue here 
https://github.com/ingydotnet/inline-c-pm/issues


This type of discussion would do better there, as we'll get around to 
addressing it.


Cheers




On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 5:58 PM, <sisyph...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:


  From: demerphq
  Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:40 AM 



    The above shows what goes wrong. Makemaker decides that PERL_LIB is 
"../../../../" instead of 
"/home/yorton/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.14.4/lib/5.14.4"

    below is the diff of the two Makefiles, but the relevant part is as follows:

    -PERL_LIB = /home/yorton/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.14.4/lib/5.14.4
    -PERL_ARCHLIB = 
/home/yorton/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.14.4/lib/5.14.4/x86_64-linux
    +PERL_LIB = ../../../../lib
    +PERL_ARCHLIB = ../../../../lib

    I am guessing that MakerMaker decides that is being used as part of 
building perl, and that it should use it as the location for its header files. 
I know there is special logic in MakeMaker for this kind of purpose.



  I didn't know that.
  If we could get a handle on precisely how to detect that this problem might 
arise, then we could probably have Inline issue a warning that "things might go 
awry, and if they do then you should move the script to a different (sane) 
location".

  I tried running your demo script on Windows (as try.pl) in 
C:/git_tree/perl/Porting with perl-5.14.0, EU-MM-6.62 and it still worked fine 
for me.
  Might there be a perlbrew component to this issue ? (I'm not at all familiar 
with perlbrew. I just build my perls the old fashioned way and call them via 
different shell/batch scripts.)

  I see that you're running EU-MM-6.57_05. If you think it's worth the effort I 
guess you could see if updating to EU-MM-6.62 fixes the problem - or do any 
other digging you think might be productive. (It's actually a bit interesting.)
  Otherwise we can just settle for the "Don't do that" solution ;-)

  Cheers,
  Rob 

Reply via email to