Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Olivier PRENANT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks fr your reply.. Not sure I understood! > I've tried your hack with no luck. Further more, README in > perl/ext/Dynaloader says it has to be static to be effective. That's talking about whether it's linked into perl, not whether it's compiled PI

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Olivier PRENANT
Lane wrote: > Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:14:13 -0400 > From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > pgsql-hackers list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib > > Oliv

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Olivier PRENANT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem is that at link time, ld complains about text segment beeing > written to in Dynaloader. > I agree this sounded stupid. But I can't think of something else. > This is with perl-5.6.1 FWIW Ah. This is a bug in Perl's build process: even if

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Olivier PRENANT
-0500 > From: Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql-hackers list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib > > On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 12:28, Tom Lane wrote: > > Olivier P

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Olivier PRENANT
nk of something else. This is with perl-5.6.1 FWIW Regards On 4 Sep 2002, Larry Rosenman wrote: > Date: 04 Sep 2002 12:37:35 -0500 > From: Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql-hackers list <[EMAIL P

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Larry Rosenman
On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 12:28, Tom Lane wrote: > Olivier PRENANT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think I figured why I can't buil plperl on unixware 711/OpenUnix 800. > > > It seems Makefile.shlib has changed between 722 and 73 and -z text has > > been added. > > Not hardly. The "-z text" optio

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Olivier PRENANT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think I figured why I can't buil plperl on unixware 711/OpenUnix 800. > It seems Makefile.shlib has changed between 722 and 73 and -z text has > been added. Not hardly. The "-z text" option has been in there since at least 6.4. 6.4's Makefile.shli

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Olivier PRENANT
Oops... This one should be all right!! Sorry Regards On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:23:11 -0400 > From: Serguei Mokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql-hackers list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [HACKER

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Serguei Mokhov
- Original Message - From: "Olivier PRENANT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: September 04, 2002 12:18 PM > I think I figured why I can't buil plperl on unixware 711/OpenUnix 800. > > It seems Makefile.shlib has changed between 722 and 73 and -z text has > been added. However with this on, it

[HACKERS] Bug in Makefile.shlib

2002-09-04 Thread Olivier PRENANT
Hi, I think I figured why I can't buil plperl on unixware 711/OpenUnix 800. It seems Makefile.shlib has changed between 722 and 73 and -z text has been added. However with this on, it fails to build libperl.so Maybe I'm wrong, but could someone consider this patch. Regards, -- Olivier PRENAN