[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Ruby Compilation

Reji Kumar

11/11/2008 1:22:00 PM

Hi,
I am compiling Ruby on IBM AIX 5.3.0.0. Version of Ruby is 1.8.6. I
am compiling ruby in 32 bit mode (OBJECT_MODE=32). Commands I used are
configure --with-gcc --prefix=$INSTALLPATH
gmake && gmake install
Configure and make are going fine.
ruby -v
ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [powerpc-aix5.3.0.0]
But when I try to load libraries, it is throwing error
ruby -d -e 'require "thread.so"'
Exception `LoadError' at
/disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so:0
-
load failed - /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8
/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so
/disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so:
load failed - /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8
/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so (LoadError) from -e:1
irb also is throwing same error.
both ruby & the library are 32 bit
file /disk1/home/local/RUBY//bin/ruby
/disk1/home/local/RUBY//bin/ruby: executable (RISC System/6000) or
object module not stripped
file /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so
/disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so:
executable (RISC System/6000) or object module not stripped
Is there anything else that can go wrong?
Is it possible to get some more information on why the load has failed?
ie to make ruby give more detailed error message, than a plain
"LoadError" exception.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....
12 Answers

Reji Kumar

11/11/2008 1:25:00 PM

0

One more thing, ruby or thread.so doesn't have any unresolved
dependencies. And the same error is being thrown for any other dynamic
library like "zlib.so", "socket.so" etc.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

rubisher

11/15/2008 4:40:00 PM

0

Reji Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> I am compiling Ruby on IBM AIX 5.3.0.0. Version of Ruby is 1.8.6. I
> am compiling ruby in 32 bit mode (OBJECT_MODE=32). Commands I used are
> configure --with-gcc --prefix=$INSTALLPATH
> gmake && gmake install
> Configure and make are going fine.
> ruby -v
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [powerpc-aix5.3.0.0]
> But when I try to load libraries, it is throwing error
> ruby -d -e 'require "thread.so"'
> Exception `LoadError' at
> /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so:0
> -
> load failed - /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8
> /powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so
> /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so:
> load failed - /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8
> /powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so (LoadError) from -e:1
> irb also is throwing same error.
> both ruby & the library are 32 bit
> file /disk1/home/local/RUBY//bin/ruby
> /disk1/home/local/RUBY//bin/ruby: executable (RISC System/6000) or
> object module not stripped
> file /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so
> /disk1/home/local/RUBY//lib/ruby/1.8/powerpc-aix5.3.0.0/thread.so:
> executable (RISC System/6000) or object module not stripped
> Is there anything else that can go wrong?
> Is it possible to get some more information on why the load has failed?
> ie to make ruby give more detailed error message, than a plain
> "LoadError" exception.
> Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Hello Reji,

Don't you try the pakage available at
<http://gnome.bullfreeware.com/aixto...
(sorry, I don't have time to test right now but I know it includes a
patch related to threads).

Hth,
r.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

The Horny Goat

10/23/2011 4:20:00 AM

0

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:49:07 -0700, "a425couple"
<a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Noting (from wiki):
>"The contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and
>the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration of
>Independence was first published. Congress, having made a few changes in
>wording, deleted nearly a fourth of the draft before publication, removing a
>passage critical of the slave trade, and many members of Congress, Jefferson
>included, owned slaves.[13] In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day responding to
>the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote:
>If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot,
>signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other
>brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.[13]

Certainly one of the ironies of the War of 1812 is that the Royal Navy
was only too happy to 'impress' able-bodied black men whether from the
Caribbean or American territory.

I do NOT recall Madison's government ever protested this at all never
mind to the degree they objected to white men being 'impressed' off US
ships at sea - and this was probably THE American grievance leading up
to the War of 1812.

William Black

10/23/2011 1:01:00 PM

0

On 23/10/11 05:19, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:49:07 -0700, "a425couple"
> <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Noting (from wiki):
>> "The contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and
>> the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration of
>> Independence was first published. Congress, having made a few changes in
>> wording, deleted nearly a fourth of the draft before publication, removing a
>> passage critical of the slave trade, and many members of Congress, Jefferson
>> included, owned slaves.[13] In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day responding to
>> the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote:
>> If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot,
>> signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other
>> brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.[13]
>
> Certainly one of the ironies of the War of 1812 is that the Royal Navy
> was only too happy to 'impress' able-bodied black men whether from the
> Caribbean or American territory.

The Royal Navy had been taking black men into its ranks for years by then.

But any black man 'pressed' would have had to have already been a sailor
of some kind.

There was even a black post captain, and reading his biography on
Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins_%28Royal_Navy_... )
I'm surprised a movie staring Denzil Washington isn't already in
production....



--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

The Horny Goat

10/23/2011 6:26:00 PM

0

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:00:52 +0100, William Black
<blackusenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Certainly one of the ironies of the War of 1812 is that the Royal Navy
>> was only too happy to 'impress' able-bodied black men whether from the
>> Caribbean or American territory.
>
>The Royal Navy had been taking black men into its ranks for years by then.
>
>But any black man 'pressed' would have had to have already been a sailor
>of some kind.

True but the war of 1812 involved the RN pressing men off American
ships. Presumably the RN didn't overly distinguish between 'landsmen'
on board ships and true sailors.

It was the conflict between the view that voluntarily naturalization
was possible vs 'you were born a King's man, you owe the King duty in
time of need' (which was certainly the case 1793-1815). That wasn't
the only issue in the war of 1812 but was one of the bigger ones.

William Black

10/23/2011 6:40:00 PM

0

On 23/10/11 19:26, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:00:52 +0100, William Black
> <blackusenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Certainly one of the ironies of the War of 1812 is that the Royal Navy
>>> was only too happy to 'impress' able-bodied black men whether from the
>>> Caribbean or American territory.
>>
>> The Royal Navy had been taking black men into its ranks for years by then.
>>
>> But any black man 'pressed' would have had to have already been a sailor
>> of some kind.
>
> True but the war of 1812 involved the RN pressing men off American
> ships. Presumably the RN didn't overly distinguish between 'landsmen'
> on board ships and true sailors.

The law stated 'Any man bred to the sea'. If you're on a ship as crew
and you're British born you would have been considered fair game.

So any US sailor born before the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which would be
all just about all of them in 1812) was considered eligible for impressment.

The reality is that the War of 1812 is a sideshow that nobody actually
cared much about on this side of the pond. It was seen then, and is
seen today, as a cynical power and land grab by the USA while the
British were busy saving the world from the Corsican tyrant...

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

a425couple

10/24/2011 3:01:00 AM

0

"William Black" <blackusenet@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> On 23/10/11 19:26, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:00:52 +0100, William Black wrote:
> The reality is that the War of 1812 is a sideshow that nobody actually
> cared much about on this side of the pond. It was seen then, and is seen
> today, as a cynical power and land grab by the USA...

This is an area where Mr. Black has firm (and unfounded)
views.
From a similar 2009 exchange:
(where he replied that he could not be bothered to
look up any historians that viewed it the same has he did!)

How ridiculous!!
Why do you cling to that tired old distortion?

I'll tell you several authors that do not believe it:

Hickey flatly states, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war."
Hickey, Donald. The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. University of
Illinois Press, 1989. ISBN 0-252-06059-8, by leading American scholar
Hickey, Donald R. Don't Give Up the Ship! Myths of the War of 1812. (2006)
ISBN 0-252-03179-2

Burt, a leading Canadian scholar, agrees completely, noting that Foster, the
British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation
of Canada was a war goal.
Burt, Alfred L. The United States, Great Britain, and British North America
from the Revolution to the Establishment of Peace after the War of 1812.
(1940)

As Horsman concludes, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since
at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The
conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for
starting it."
Horsman, Reginald. The Causes of the War of 1812 (1962).

Brown (1964) concludes, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve
negotiation not to annex Canada."
Brown, Roger H. The Republic in Peril: 1812 (1964). on American politics

Goodman (1941) refuted the idea of Canada being the goal.
Goodman, Warren H. "The Origins of the War of 1812: A Survey of Changing
Interpretations," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXVIII (September,
1941), 171-86. in JSTOR

a425couple

10/25/2011 1:07:00 PM

0

"Richard Gadsden" <richard@gadsden.name> wrote in...
> a425couple@hotmail.com (a425couple) wrote:
>> "William Black" <blackusenet@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>> > On 23/10/11 19:26, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:00:52 +0100, William Black wrote:
>> > The reality is that the War of 1812 is a sideshow that nobody
>> > actually cared much about on this side of the pond. It was seen
>> > then, and is seen today, as a cynical power and land grab by the
>> > USA...
>> How ridiculous!!
>> Why do you cling to that tired old distortion?
>> I'll tell you several authors that do not believe it: (snipped)
>
> None of the sources you quote address the popular perception of the
> conflict in the United Kingdom.
> Richard Gadsden

True.
(Is it still the "popular perception" ?)
(skipping for now, any debate about American views of
The War of 1812)

But in the larger picture, what is our reason/goal for reading
in these newsgroups? (especially the history based ones)

I would think and hope, that it is to learn new things.
Sometimes we learn brand new things.
Sometimes our perceptions are reinforced from reading here
and from other new readings.
Sometimes our old perceptions are challenged, and upon further
investigations, we should be open to changing our beliefs.

I would hope that we still believe we can learn new things
(and try purging out our long held erroneous 'facts').

AlexMilman

10/25/2011 4:26:00 PM

0

On Oct 23, 11:01 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "William Black" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> > On 23/10/11 19:26, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:00:52 +0100, William Black wrote:
> > The reality is that the War of 1812 is a sideshow that nobody actually
> > cared much about on this side of the pond.  It was seen then,  and is seen
> > today, as a cynical power and land grab by the USA...
>
> This is an area where Mr. Black has firm (and unfounded)
> views.

It does not matter if his views are firm or not. What DOES matter is
that he is right that from the European perspective (he is quite clear
regarding side of the pond he is talking about) it was not even a
sideshow (which was the case for the GB). The main event of 1812 was
Napoleon's campaign in Russia with something like 600K involved on
both sides, 450 - 500K dead by the end of a year and the whole
european political status-quo shattered.
2nd in importance event was Wellington's campaign which ended with the
French being thrown out of Spain.

American events of 1812, as far as Europe was involved, had been
important only to the Brits and even then probably not as important as
fight against Napoleon.


BTW, speaking of the 'popular perceptions' (or whatever), 'Overture of
1812' has nothing to do with the events in America either. :-)

Robert A. Woodward

10/26/2011 6:08:00 AM

0

In article <j86h0b$63l$4@dont-email.me>,
William Black <blackusenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/10/11 07:15, Richard Gadsden wrote:
> > In article<j82kf202ksi@news2.newsguy.com> on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:01:07
> > -0700, a425couple@hotmail.com (a425couple) wrote:
> >
> >> "William Black"<blackusenet@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> >>> On 23/10/11 19:26, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:00:52 +0100, William Black wrote:
> >>> The reality is that the War of 1812 is a sideshow that nobody
> >>> actually cared much about on this side of the pond. It was seen
> >>> then, and is seen today, as a cynical power and land grab by the
> >>> USA...
> >>
> >> This is an area where Mr. Black has firm (and unfounded)
> >> views.
> >> From a similar 2009 exchange:
> >> (where he replied that he could not be bothered to
> >> look up any historians that viewed it the same has he did!)
> >>
> >> How ridiculous!!
> >> Why do you cling to that tired old distortion?
> >>
> >> I'll tell you several authors that do not believe it:
> >
> > None of the sources you quote address the popular perception of the
> > conflict in the United Kingdom.
> >
> He knows this.
>
> He's far more interested in trying to distort the actions of the rather
> cynical US politicians of the day.
>
> The idea that the USA went to war over a few sailors pressed out of US
> ships is absurd.

There were more than a few sailors. The numbers I have seen would
had been sufficient to man about half of the warships that the
Royal Navy had at the Battle of Trafalgar.

--
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~ro...