Re: [bug-gawk] Description of the option --disable-extensions

[arnold]

Hi.

Thanks for the report.

The manual is incomplete.  This option disables the whole dynamic
loading mechanism, as well as skipping the building of the extensions.

I will update the manual.

And out of curiousity, what kind of system are you on that doesn't have
shared library support?

Thanks,

Arnold

?? <address@hidden> wrote:

> For some reason I have to compile GNU AWK with a completely disabled API for 
> extensions.
> When analysing the ./configure help, I supposed that the option 
> --disable-extensions was what I'd been looking for.
>
> $ sh ./configure --help
> `configure' configures GNU Awk 5.0.0 to adapt to many kinds of systems.
> ...
> --disable-extensions?? ?? disable dynamic extensions (default is detect)
> ...
>
>
> Such an option is quite common, with a usual behavior.
> And I was glad to notice that the string "API: 2.0" disappeared from the 
> --version output:
>
> $ sh ./configure --disable-extensions --prefix=/path/to/
> ...
> $ make
> ...
> $ make install
> ...
> $ /path/to/bin/gawk --version
> GNU Awk 5.0.0 (GNU MPFR 4.0.1, GNU MP 6.1.2)
> Copyright (C) 1989, 1991-2019 Free Software Foundation.
> ...
>
>
> But I fell into doubts after reading the corresponding description in the 
> manual:
>
> B.2.3 Additional Configuration Options
> ...
> --disable-extensions
> Disable configuring and building the sample extensions in the extension direc-
> tory. This is useful for cross-compiling. The default action is to dynamically
> check if the extensions can be configured and compiled.
> ...
>
>
> That is, it states that this option refers only to the sample extensions 
> provided with the GNU AWK distribution.
> Nothing about user extensions, which can be compiled (and used?) after that.
>
> If the option --disable-extensions is passed to ./configure, will the final 
> interpreter raise an error
> when a user tries to load some extensions in a script? What is the proper 
> behavior?
> Or this description in the manual is ambiguous/incorrect?
>
> _______________
>
> Yours respectfully,
> Mark Krauze
>