> Read the code of the current version of configure.ac. Great reference… one comment in code, mentioned in the top of the thread by me myself.
> > No. If vim were to make any attempt to link against a static library just > like you claim, the code would be > > > if test -f "$rubylibdir/$librubya"; then > librubyarg="$librubya" > > > instead of the current > > > > if test -f "$rubylibdir/$librubya"; then > librubyarg="$librubyarg" > > > Currently, if $rubylibdir/$librubya exists, then it uses $librubyarg instead > of $librubya. Basically, $librubyarg is '-lruby'. Then the whole thing with libruby_a makes no sense. Why even check for it? > However, as the code indicates, there's a case where $librubyarg is set to > libruby.a. > Only for that case, libruby.a is chosen (This is OK since it turns out to >exist). Otherwise, -lruby is chosen even if libruby.a exists. I see nothing like this in the code. I see: if test -f $rubylibdir/$librubya ; then # we check if the static library exists librubyarg="$librubyarg" # this seems like a perfect piece of code that does literally nothing! RUBY_LIBS="$RUBY_LIBS -L$rubylibdir" # at least we add the library directory elif # here goes osx 10.3 section ... fi if test "X$librubyarg" != "X"; then # test if ruby actually gave us anything to link to RUBY_LIBS="$librubyarg $RUBY_LIBS" # add that fi So no, I don't see how what you say is represented in code. Are we reading different code or are we reading code differently? >> What we need to care are two things: (1) the in-existence of the static >> library and (2) the sanity of the ruby configuration. When both are met, we >> decide that there simply is no static library at all. > > Too abstract for me to understand. > Huh?.. > Note that the question was made last May: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43956208/does-mac-os-x-have-the-dev-ptmx-file > , and that Patch 8.0.1166 was merged last September. You can't drop the > support for old Mac OS X's in favor of your patch. > Cool, you convinced me… to install OS X 10.3. Yep, OK, I can agree with you that LIBRUBYARG is indeed "libruby.a". But also, LIBRUBY_A is "libruby.a". Cool, huh? See here: https://d.pr/i/ASPsxd So I don't see how my patch is going to break anything, but then again there are some other concerns and refinements to make, i.e. writing the logic in a more explicit and understandable way. Your patch, appears to actually break OS X 10.3 build — you try to include "libruby.a" in RUBY_LIBS. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
