Re: [platform-testers] GNU poke 3.90.0 pre-released in alpha.gnu.org

[Bruno Haible]

> Bruno, what is the exact sequence of commands you used to build poke?

Ubuntu 22.04.

1) Install poke 2.90.1 with --prefix=/inst-x86_64-64 . (That was one year ago.)

2)
$ tar xf poke-3.90.0.tar.gz
$ cd poke-3.90.0/
$ CC="gcc -ftrapv"; CXX="g++ -ftrapv"; export CC CXX
$ BDW_GC_CFLAGS="-I/arch/x86_64-linux-gnu/gnu-inst-gc/8.0.6/include"; 
BDW_GC_LIBS="-L/arch/x86_64-linux-gnu/gnu-inst-gc/8.0.6/lib -lgc 
-Wl,-rpath,/arch/x86_64-linux-gnu/gnu-inst-gc/8.0.6/lib"; export BDW_GC_CFLAGS 
BDW_GC_LIBS
$ mkdir build-64
$ cd build-64
$ ../configure --prefix=/inst-x86_64-64 CPPFLAGS="-I/inst-x86_64-64/include 
-Wall" LDFLAGS="-L/inst-x86_64-64/lib" 2>&1 | tee log1
$ make 2>&1 | tee log2
$ make check 2>&1 | tee log3
=> Fails as shown in the first mail.

3)
$ cd /inst-x86_64-64
$ ls -lrtu `find . -type f`
...
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno   25886 22. Jan 01:17 ./include/textstyle.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno    1155 22. Jan 01:17 ./include/textstyle/woe32dll.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno    1348 22. Jan 01:17 ./include/textstyle/version.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno    4315 22. Jan 01:17 ./include/textstyle/stdbool.h
-rwxr-xr-x 1 bruno bruno    1036 22. Jan 01:17 ./lib/libtextstyle.la
-rwxr-xr-x 1 bruno bruno 4429184 22. Jan 01:21 ./lib/libpoke.so.0.0.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno  113196 22. Jan 01:21 ./share/info/poke.info-3
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno  299111 22. Jan 01:21 ./share/info/poke.info-2
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno  301083 22. Jan 01:21 ./share/info/poke.info-1
-rw-r--r-- 1 bruno bruno   21353 22. Jan 01:21 ./share/info/poke.info
-rwxr-xr-x 1 bruno bruno 2653760 22. Jan 01:21 ./lib/libtextstyle.so.0.1.2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 bruno bruno  549376 22. Jan 01:21 ./lib/libgmp.so.10.4.0

It seems that
  - "make" used the installed libtextstyle (which is expected),
  - "make check" used the installed poke.info (wrong, but probably harmless)
    and the installed libpoke.so (wrong, probably the cause of the trouble).

Is libpoke.so from the version 3.90.0 / 4.0 supposed to be ABI compatible
with the one from version 2.90.1 / 3.0 ? If yes, then we have proof that it is
not ABI compatible. If no, then you should increment its version number, so that
the "make check" from version 3.90.0 does not use the one from version
2.90.1 / 3.0. More on this topic:
  - https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Versioning.html
  - 
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob;f=build-aux/libtool-next-version

Bruno


Bruno