Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables #319

Closed
jrgifford opened this issue Feb 28, 2013 · 11 comments
Closed

configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables #319

jrgifford opened this issue Feb 28, 2013 · 11 comments

Comments

@jrgifford
Copy link

I see this with any version of the C ruby family.

https://gist.github.com/jrgifford/5057327

However, when I revert ruby-build to 84820db, it works.

OS: Ubuntu 12.10, 32 bit.

@jrgifford
Copy link
Author

Fails on 06d7994 as well.

@sferik
Copy link
Contributor

sferik commented Feb 28, 2013

@sstephenson The only relevant changes between 84820db1c0793239ad20a36a10ac3e74c1a73a0d and master at the moment are the CFLAGS changes you made yesterday. Any idea why those may be causing this issue?

@sstephenson
Copy link
Contributor

@jrgifford It sounds like you have both clang and gcc installed. ruby-build detects clang and adds -Wno-error=shorten-64-to-32 to CFLAGS accordingly (#290).

You can work around this error by running CC=gcc rbenv install ...

The question is, why does Ruby's configure pick gcc instead of clang? /cc @jeremy

@jeremy
Copy link
Member

jeremy commented Mar 1, 2013

@sstephenson This is because Ruby does the gcc-4.2/clang/gcc/cc check on darwin only.

On other platforms, --with-gcc, --without-gcc, and manually-set CC decide the compiler.

So if clang is available on Ubuntu, we'll break unless the user passed CC=clang or RUBY_CONFIGURE_OPTS=--without-gcc

Argh. Sounds better to limit our test to darwin.

@jrgifford
Copy link
Author

Correct that I can run CC=gcc rbenv install ....

I do have both clang and gcc installed.

James Gifford
cell: 2162238574

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Jeremy Kemper notifications@github.comwrote:

@sstephenson https://github.com/sstephenson This is because Ruby does
the gcc-4.2/clang/gcc/cc check on darwin only.

On other platforms, --with-gcc, --without-gcc, and manually-set CC decide
the compiler.

So if clang is available on Ubuntu, we'll break unless the user passed
CC=clang or RUBY_CONFIGURE_OPTS=--without-gcc

Argh. Sounds better to limit our test to darwin.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/319#issuecomment-14270556
.

@sgharms
Copy link

sgharms commented Mar 31, 2013

Just got bit by this one today. Sam's workaround was successful though.

@jrgifford
Copy link
Author

This should get fixed soon, I was playing with a potential fix last week.
I'll test some more and see if it solves it.

James Gifford
cell: 2162238574
Snowy Penguin Solutions, LLC | http://snowypenguinsolutions.com
On Mar 31, 2013 12:22 PM, "Steven G. Harms" notifications@github.com
wrote:

Just got bit by this one today. Sam's workaround was successful though.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/319#issuecomment-15693593
.

gnprice added a commit to gnprice/ruby-build that referenced this issue Apr 2, 2013
The previous version of this logic was causing us to
pass the flag when
 * clang is on the PATH, and
 * $CC, or 'clang' if CC unset, accepts the flag.
But this is totally wrong if we have clang installed,
haven't set $CC, and are going to end up using gcc.
We end up passing the flag to gcc, which rejects it.

The real fix is to put this in the autoconf goo in MRI
upstream -- the only correct way to decide whether to pass
this flag is after we know exactly what compiler we're using
and can test if that compiler accepts the flag.  But we can
do better than before by approximating autoconf's choice of
compiler as $CC if set, 'cc' otherwise (which will typically
be a symlink to gcc or clang or another.)

Fixes: rbenv#319
  and rbenv#325, which is a dupe.
@gnprice
Copy link
Contributor

gnprice commented Apr 2, 2013

Just submitted a fix as #339.

@jeremy, @sstephenson, I don't think that explanation of why MRI's configure script picks gcc is right. The case statement mentioning gcc-4.2, gcc, cc, and clang doesn't affect the C compiler used -- it's only reading $CC, and setting $CXX (the C++ compiler) correspondingly. It looks like quite a kludge, but it doesn't touch the C compiler.

Later on, the script invokes the standard Autoconf macro AC_PROG_CC. That's documented like so:

If CC is not already set in the environment, check for gcc and cc, then for other C compilers. Set output variable CC to the name of the compiler found. [... then much more detail ...]
http://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/C-Compiler.html

So GCC will be chosen because it's the preference embedded into Autoconf. The environment variable $CC overrides that preference; if you're building MRI with clang, you're doing so either by setting $CC directly; or setting it through the --without-gcc flag to this configure script, which sets $CC to cc; or setting it by some other means I've missed.

This highlights how tough it is to accurately guess from the outside what configure is going to do! In fact, even the documentation (as I quoted) doesn't nail down just how AC_PROG_CC finds a C compiler, if its first three choices don't exist. So as I said in the pull request and commit message, the real fix is to handle this in the actual configure script upstream, where we can piggyback off of Autoconf's actual choices rather than try to predict them. But pending that, I think my change should make the workaround clearer and prevent it from causing problems for most people.

@jeremy
Copy link
Member

jeremy commented Apr 26, 2013

Fixed by #339

@jeremy jeremy closed this as completed Apr 26, 2013
@jrgifford
Copy link
Author

Yay! 😄

@Nakilon
Copy link

Nakilon commented Oct 11, 2015

Despite this issue is two years old I had to do this patch manually a month ago.

$ ruby-build --version
ruby-build 20150818

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants