Sender: Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:04:10 +0200
From: Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>
To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: notmuch release 0.20.2 now available
Message-ID: <20150706140410.GB4079@chitra.no-ip.org>
Mail-Followup-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
References: <87h9pplqer.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
 <20150630063942.GM24926@chitra.no-ip.org>
 <87a8vhlkdv.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
 <20150630084018.GO24926@chitra.no-ip.org>
 <87r3otjfib.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87r3otjfib.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: list

Hi David,

First, apologies for the delay.  I had a bicycle accident, still
recovering.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:02:52PM +0200, David Bremner wrote:
> Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Yes, I have looked at what the official packages[1] do, I do exactly the
> > same[2].  Essentially the spec file does the following:
> >
> >   pushd bindings/ruby
> >       ruby extconf.rb --vendor --with-cflags="%{optflags}"
> >       make %{?_smp_mflags}
> >   popd
> 
> I think the problem is contained in the original message. Since we want
> to create a shared library "notmuch.so" for ruby to import, we need to
> compile the C files in bindings/ruby with -fPIC.
> 
> I don't know if this is Debian specific, or ruby version specific, but
> on my Debian Jessie machine with ruby 2.1, the generated Makefile
> bindings/ruby/Makefile has
> 
> CFLAGS   = $(CCDLFLAGS) -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
> -Werror=format-security -fPIC $(ARCH_FLAG)
> 
> in it
> 
> even when invoked outside the notmuch build system; e.g.
> 
> % cd bindings/ruby && ruby extconf.rb
> 
> I guess the first step is to see if the -fPIC flag is also there on
> Fedora, and if not, why not. If I look at the builds for 0.19 [1]
> it seems it is. But notice there it is not required to pass it in to "--with-cflags"

Indeed.  I looked at the generated Makefiles, they like below:

--- nm-0.20.2.mk	2015-07-06 15:11:26.138317221 +0200
+++ nm-master.mk	2015-07-06 15:41:14.929951640 +0200
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@
 debugflags = -ggdb3
 warnflags = -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-parentheses -Wno-long-long -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wunused-variable -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wno-packed-bitfield-compat
 CCDLFLAGS = -fPIC
-CFLAGS   = $(CCDLFLAGS) -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches  -m64 -mtune=generic $(ARCH_FLAG)
+CFLAGS   = $(CCDLFLAGS) -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -mtune=generic -fPIC $(ARCH_FLAG)
 INCFLAGS = -I. -I../../lib -I$(arch_hdrdir) -I$(hdrdir)/ruby/backward -I$(hdrdir) -I$(srcdir)
 DEFS     = 
 CPPFLAGS =   $(DEFS) $(cppflags)

So actually, the master version gets the -fPIC flag.  But it should be
redundant, since CCDLFLAGS is already set to -fPIC.  Now when I compare
the corresponding compile commands, I see (you also noticed that in the
logs):

0.20.2: gcc -I. -I../../lib -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I.   -fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches  -m64 -mtune=generic -m64 -o message.o -c message.c
master: gcc -I. -I../../lib -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I.   -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches  -m64 -mtune=generic -o message.o -c message.c

So the trailing bits of the command is somehow dropped, and the
CCDLFLAGS seems to be absent (see, no empty space either).  I do not
understand why that would be the case.  I'll dig further when I can find
some more time ...

> [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/notmuch/0.19/1.fc21/data/logs/x86_64/build.log
>     - I couldn't find x86_64 build logs for 0.20  

You can't, Fedora ships only 0.19.  That's why I maintain the 0.20+ copr
repository, for myself and other interested (invisible) users out there
:-p.  This gap was much wider in the past.

Cheers,

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.