in reply to Re^2: Devel::CheckLib problem
in thread Devel::CheckLib problem

I'd try replacing $Config{cc} = "$^X $Config{cc}"; with $Config{cc} = $^X . ' ' . $Config{cc};.

That's based on nothing more than guesswork as I didn't actually download the whole package, just the .pm file. (You'd already said most of the tests failed:)

I'm fascinated by the /blib thing. Does it work if you load some other inconsequential module; say bytes or less or maybe just strict?

I've got this niggle in the back of my head. Something about adding coderefs to @INC or %INC, I forget the dtails. Maybe putting something (anything) in those stops some too-clever-by-half piece of code getting invoked?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Devel::CheckLib problem
by syphilis (Archbishop) on Dec 10, 2010 at 02:06 UTC
    I'd try replacing $Config{cc} = "$^X $Config{cc}"; with $Config{cc} = $^X . ' ' . $Config{cc};

    Doesn't help, unfortunately. It was also suggested I try making $Config{cc} local to that test script, but that changes nothing.

    Does it work if you load some other inconsequential module; say bytes or less or maybe just strict?

    Nup - has to be 'blib'. The script already loads strict.pm, and I did try out 'less' and 'bytes' ... to no avail. (There may of course be some module other than 'blib' that has the same effect.)

    I probably ought to take a look at blib and see what it's doing. Perhaps, therein, lies the clue.

    Cheers,
    Rob
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom