[Scons-users] Surprising change in behaviour of createSharedLibBuilder

[Steve Hill (Wireless)]

Bill,

Some are GCC-based but others are not. For the GCC-based ones, is there a simpler approach to producing a Tool? I am always happy to simplify our code…

S.

From: Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
Sent: 20 September 2021 17:23
To: Steve Hill (Wireless) <Steve.Hill1 at viavisolutions.com>
Cc: SCons users mailing list <scons-users at scons.org>
Subject: Re: [Scons-users] Surprising change in behaviour of createSharedLibBuilder

Steve,

Nope, totally the correct way to implement.
out of curiosity are none of these gcc or clang based?

-Bill

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 9:21 AM Steve Hill (Wireless) <Steve.Hill1 at viavisolutions.com<mailto:Steve.Hill1 at viavisolutions.com>> wrote:
Hi Bill,

We have written several Tools for compilers, linkers (and other things) not natively supported by SCons. Where possible, we have defined the appropriate environment variables and called the create*Builder helpers to add the appropriate builders into the environment. Should we have done this in a different way?

Cheers,

S.

From: Bill Deegan
Sent: 20 September 2021 15:47
To: SCons users mailing list <scons-users at scons.org<mailto:scons-users at scons.org>>
Subject: Re: [Scons-users] Surprising change in behaviour of createSharedLibBuilder

Steve,

Any API not in the manpage is not subject to depreciation process.

As far as this specific change, it was necessary to introduce an intermediary variable for  the suffix to properly generate versioned shared library file names and symlinks.
Not sure why you're calling createSharedLibBuilder() directly?
Perhaps if you can explain why, we can suggest how you should handle this change.

-Bill

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:55 AM Steve Hill (Wireless) via Scons-users <scons-users at scons.org<mailto:scons-users at scons.org>> wrote:
Hi,

I’ve just started the process of upgrading from SCons 3.1.2 to 4.2.0 and some of our Tools have been broken by a change that I find surprising.

Where we define a ShLib builder, we define $SHLIBPREFIX and $SHLIBSUFFIX, amongst other things, before calling createSharedLibBuilder(env).

Moving to 4.2.0, this resulted in the prefix still being honoured, while the suffix was not. By default, the builder now takes $SHLIBPREFIX and $_SHLIBSUFFIX. Could someone explain the reason for the new asymmetry?

Is the preferred solution to add the optional argument (SCons.Tool.createSharedLibBuilder(env, "$SHLIBSUFFIX")) or to change our Tools to define $_SHLIBSUFFIX instead of $SHLIBSUFFIX?

Thanks,

S.
_______________________________________________
Scons-users mailing list
Scons-users at scons.org<mailto:Scons-users at scons.org>
https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users__;!!Niha4SQ!r8vgDSnnSKcVzyrZLdwAO83qTslyKpk7RPORUGVdwDQ52GFuCD1Hoq1b8kzxEyXj6nsNfiok$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20210921/97902af1/attachment.htm>