Hi, Ruby currently fails to build due to removal of GCC from buildroot. The build failure is due to one test case [1] which fails now and which should be probably fixed to pass even without GCC. However, digging into this, I wonder if Ruby should have "BR: gcc" or "BR: gcc-c++". The thing is, that Ruby is checking presence of C++ compiler during its configuration phase.

Dne 26.7.2018 v 13:40 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/26/2018 06:28 PM: >> Hi, >> >> Ruby currently fails to build due to removal of GCC from buildroot. The >> build failure is due to one test case [1] which fails now and which >> should be probably fixed to pass even without GCC. >> >> However, digging into this, I wonder if Ruby should have "BR: gcc" or >> "BR: gcc-c++". The thing is, that Ruby is checking presence of C++ >> compiler during its configuration phase. > > ruby-libs contains: > > > /usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:180:  CONFIG["CXXFLAGS"] = "-O2 -g -pipe > -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong > -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 > -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic > -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection" > /usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:181:  CONFIG["CXX"] = "g++" > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:74:  CXX_EXT = %w[cc mm cxx cpp] > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:76:    CXX_EXT.concat(%w[C]) > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:82:  SRC_EXT = C_EXT + CXX_EXT > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1830:        $CXXFLAGS += " " << cflags > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1963:CXX = #{CONFIG['CXX']} > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1984:CXXFLAGS = $(CCDLFLAGS) #$CXXFLAGS > $(ARCH_FLAG) > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2429:    command = compile_command % COMPILE_CXX > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2430:    asm_command = > compile_command.sub(/compiling/, 'translating') % ASSEMBLE_CXX > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2431:    CXX_EXT.each do |e| > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2458:    if > srcs.any?(&%r"\.(?:#{CXX_EXT.join('|')})\z".method(:===)) > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2510:    $CXXFLAGS = (with_config("cxxflags", > arg_config("CXXFLAGS", config["CXXFLAGS"]))||'').dup > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2666:  COMPILE_CXX = > config_string('COMPILE_CXX') || '$(CXX) $(INCFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) > $(CXXFLAGS) $(COUTFLAG)$@ -c $(CSRCFLAG)$<' > /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2676:  ASSEMBLE_CXX = > config_string('ASSEMBLE_CXX') || COMPILE_CXX.sub(/(?<=\s)-c(?=\s)/, '-S') > > So it is quite reasonable that ruby compilation checks > CXX compiler. The ticket [1] I referenced even linked to commit which introduced some of these lines [10]. However, this says nothing about usage of this code. Neither the ruby-dev discussion provides more information [11]. So is there some extension library which uses results of these checks? Frankly I'd be much happier if this was removed from upstream, since why special case C++, but not Rust for example. I am looking for some evidence ....

Dne 26.7.2018 v 15:11 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Sending to mailing list: > > Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/26/2018 09:18 PM: >> >> Dne 26.7.2018 v 13:40 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): >>> Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/26/2018 06:28 PM: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Ruby currently fails to build due to removal of GCC from buildroot. >>>> The >>>> build failure is due to one test case [1] which fails now and which >>>> should be probably fixed to pass even without GCC. >>>> >>>> However, digging into this, I wonder if Ruby should have "BR: gcc" or >>>> "BR: gcc-c++". The thing is, that Ruby is checking presence of C++ >>>> compiler during its configuration phase. >>> ruby-libs contains: >>> >>> >>> /usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:180:  CONFIG["CXXFLAGS"] = "-O2 -g -pipe >>> -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >>> -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong >>> -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 >>> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic >>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection" >>> /usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:181:  CONFIG["CXX"] = "g++" >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:74:  CXX_EXT = %w[cc mm cxx cpp] >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:76:    CXX_EXT.concat(%w[C]) >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:82:  SRC_EXT = C_EXT + CXX_EXT >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1830:        $CXXFLAGS += " " << cflags >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1963:CXX = #{CONFIG['CXX']} >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1984:CXXFLAGS = $(CCDLFLAGS) #$CXXFLAGS >>> $(ARCH_FLAG) >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2429:    command = compile_command % >>> COMPILE_CXX >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2430:    asm_command = >>> compile_command.sub(/compiling/, 'translating') % ASSEMBLE_CXX >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2431:    CXX_EXT.each do |e| >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2458:    if >>> srcs.any?(&%r"\.(?:#{CXX_EXT.join('|')})\z".method(:===)) >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2510:    $CXXFLAGS = (with_config("cxxflags", >>> arg_config("CXXFLAGS", config["CXXFLAGS"]))||'').dup >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2666:  COMPILE_CXX = >>> config_string('COMPILE_CXX') || '$(CXX) $(INCFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) >>> $(CXXFLAGS) $(COUTFLAG)$@ -c $(CSRCFLAG)$<' >>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2676:  ASSEMBLE_CXX = >>> config_string('ASSEMBLE_CXX') || COMPILE_CXX.sub(/(?<=\s)-c(?=\s)/, >>> '-S') >>> >>> So it is quite reasonable that ruby compilation checks >>> CXX compiler. >> The ticket [1] I referenced even linked to commit which introduced some >> of these lines [10]. However, this says nothing about usage of this >> code. Neither the ruby-dev discussion provides more information [11]. >> >> So is there some extension library which uses results of these checks? >> Frankly I'd be much happier if this was removed from upstream, since why >> special case C++, but not Rust for example. I am looking for some >> evidence .... >> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1124633 > https://github.com/knu/ruby-unf_ext/blob/master/ext/unf_ext/extconf.rb#L31 > Ups, sorry, I forgot test it prior issuing the latest build (I was happy enough that I workarounded the OpenSSL test failures) :( However testing the build now, rubygem-unf_ext builds just fine. "gem install unf_ext" works fine as well. Also, the RbConfig contains the CXX variables referred in the extconf.rb: ~~~ $ rpm -q ruby-libs ruby-libs-2.5.1-94.fc29.x86_64 $ ruby -r rbconfig -e "RbConfig::CONFIG.each {|c| p c}" | grep CXX ["configure_args", " '--build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' '--host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' '--program-prefix=' '--disable-dependency-tracking' '--prefix=/usr' '--exec-prefix=/usr' '--bindir=/usr/bin' '--sbindir=/usr/sbin' '--sysconfdir=/etc' '--datadir=/usr/share' '--includedir=/usr/include' '--libdir=/usr/lib64' '--libexecdir=/usr/libexec' '--localstatedir=/var' '--sharedstatedir=/var/lib' '--mandir=/usr/share/man' '--infodir=/usr/share/info' '--with-rubylibprefix=/usr/share/ruby' '--with-archlibdir=/usr/lib64' '--with-rubyarchprefix=/usr/lib64/ruby' '--with-sitedir=/usr/local/share/ruby/site_ruby' '--with-sitearchdir=/usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby' '--with-vendordir=/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby' '--with-vendorarchdir=/usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby' '--with-rubyhdrdir=/usr/include' '--with-rubyarchhdrdir=/usr/include' '--with-sitearchhdrdir=$(sitehdrdir)/$(arch)' '--with-vendorarchhdrdir=$(vendorhdrdir)/$(arch)' '--with-rubygemsdir=/usr/share/rubygems' '--with-ruby-pc=ruby.pc' '--with-compress-debug-sections=no' '--disable-rpath' '--enable-shared' '--with-ruby-version=' '--enable-multiarch' '--with-prelude=./abrt_prelude.rb' 'build_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' 'host_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection' 'LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,relro   -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld' 'CXXFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection'"] ["CXXFLAGS", "-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection"] ["CXX", "g++"] ["CFLAGS", "-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -fPIC"] ~~~ Actually, this makes me even less worried, because for RPM build, we can use %{optflags} and we are relatively safe here, but I was more worried about pure "gem install" scenario. Vít

Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/27/2018 07:23 PM: > > > Dne 27.7.2018 v 12:11 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> >> Dne 26.7.2018 v 15:11 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): >>> Sending to mailing list: >>> >>> Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/26/2018 09:18 PM: >>>> >>>> Dne 26.7.2018 v 13:40 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): >>>>> Vít Ondruch wrote on 07/26/2018 06:28 PM: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ruby currently fails to build due to removal of GCC from buildroot. >>>>>> The >>>>>> build failure is due to one test case [1] which fails now and which >>>>>> should be probably fixed to pass even without GCC. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, digging into this, I wonder if Ruby should have "BR: >>>>>> gcc" or >>>>>> "BR: gcc-c++". The thing is, that Ruby is checking presence of C++ >>>>>> compiler during its configuration phase. >>>>> ruby-libs contains: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:180:  CONFIG["CXXFLAGS"] = "-O2 -g -pipe >>>>> -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >>>>> -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong >>>>> -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 >>>>> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic >>>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection >>>>> -fcf-protection" >>>>> /usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb:181:  CONFIG["CXX"] = "g++" >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:74:  CXX_EXT = %w[cc mm cxx cpp] >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:76:    CXX_EXT.concat(%w[C]) >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:82:  SRC_EXT = C_EXT + CXX_EXT >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1830:        $CXXFLAGS += " " << cflags >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1963:CXX = #{CONFIG['CXX']} >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:1984:CXXFLAGS = $(CCDLFLAGS) #$CXXFLAGS >>>>> $(ARCH_FLAG) >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2429:    command = compile_command % >>>>> COMPILE_CXX >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2430:    asm_command = >>>>> compile_command.sub(/compiling/, 'translating') % ASSEMBLE_CXX >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2431:    CXX_EXT.each do |e| >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2458:    if >>>>> srcs.any?(&%r"\.(?:#{CXX_EXT.join('|')})\z".method(:===)) >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2510:    $CXXFLAGS = >>>>> (with_config("cxxflags", >>>>> arg_config("CXXFLAGS", config["CXXFLAGS"]))||'').dup >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2666:  COMPILE_CXX = >>>>> config_string('COMPILE_CXX') || '$(CXX) $(INCFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) >>>>> $(CXXFLAGS) $(COUTFLAG)$@ -c $(CSRCFLAG)$<' >>>>> /usr/share/ruby/mkmf.rb:2676:  ASSEMBLE_CXX = >>>>> config_string('ASSEMBLE_CXX') || COMPILE_CXX.sub(/(?<=\s)-c(?=\s)/, >>>>> '-S') >>>>> >>>>> So it is quite reasonable that ruby compilation checks >>>>> CXX compiler. >>>> The ticket [1] I referenced even linked to commit which introduced >>>> some >>>> of these lines [10]. However, this says nothing about usage of this >>>> code. Neither the ruby-dev discussion provides more information [11]. >>>> >>>> So is there some extension library which uses results of these >>>> checks? >>>> Frankly I'd be much happier if this was removed from upstream, >>>> since why >>>> special case C++, but not Rust for example. I am looking for some >>>> evidence .... >>>> >>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1124633 >>> https://github.com/knu/ruby-unf_ext/blob/master/ext/unf_ext/extconf.rb#L31 >>> >>> >> Ups, sorry, I forgot test it prior issuing the latest build (I was >> happy >> enough that I workarounded the OpenSSL test failures) :( >> >> However testing the build now, rubygem-unf_ext builds just fine. "gem >> install unf_ext" works fine as well. Also, the RbConfig contains the >> CXX >> variables referred in the extconf.rb: >> >> ~~~ >> $ rpm -q ruby-libs >> ruby-libs-2.5.1-94.fc29.x86_64 >> >> $ ruby -r rbconfig -e "RbConfig::CONFIG.each {|c| p c}" | grep CXX >> ["configure_args", " '--build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' >> '--host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' '--program-prefix=' >> '--disable-dependency-tracking' '--prefix=/usr' '--exec-prefix=/usr' >> '--bindir=/usr/bin' '--sbindir=/usr/sbin' '--sysconfdir=/etc' >> '--datadir=/usr/share' '--includedir=/usr/include' >> '--libdir=/usr/lib64' >> '--libexecdir=/usr/libexec' '--localstatedir=/var' >> '--sharedstatedir=/var/lib' '--mandir=/usr/share/man' >> '--infodir=/usr/share/info' '--with-rubylibprefix=/usr/share/ruby' >> '--with-archlibdir=/usr/lib64' '--with-rubyarchprefix=/usr/lib64/ruby' >> '--with-sitedir=/usr/local/share/ruby/site_ruby' >> '--with-sitearchdir=/usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby' >> '--with-vendordir=/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby' >> '--with-vendorarchdir=/usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby' >> '--with-rubyhdrdir=/usr/include' '--with-rubyarchhdrdir=/usr/include' >> '--with-sitearchhdrdir=$(sitehdrdir)/$(arch)' >> '--with-vendorarchhdrdir=$(vendorhdrdir)/$(arch)' >> '--with-rubygemsdir=/usr/share/rubygems' '--with-ruby-pc=ruby.pc' >> '--with-compress-debug-sections=no' '--disable-rpath' '--enable-shared' >> '--with-ruby-version=' '--enable-multiarch' >> '--with-prelude=./abrt_prelude.rb' >> 'build_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' >> 'host_alias=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall >> -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >> -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong >> -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic >> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection' >> 'LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,relro   -Wl,-z,now >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld' 'CXXFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe >> -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >> -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong >> -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic >> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection >> -fcf-protection'"] >> ["CXXFLAGS", "-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security >> -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions >> -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic >> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection"] >> ["CXX", "g++"] >> ["CFLAGS", "-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security >> -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions >> -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mtune=generic >> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection >> -fPIC"] >> ~~~ >> >> Actually, this makes me even less worried, because for RPM build, we >> can >> use %{optflags} and we are relatively safe here, but I was more worried >> about pure "gem install" scenario. >> >> >> Vít >> > > This brings me to another question, shouldn't we add "cxxflags" here? > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/7c494340f9b797e5a8ce2f8dd8fd... > I guess it is better.

Regards, Mamoru _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraprojec...