GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — build: refine static and shared lib build by yhwang · Pull Request #17604 · nodejs/node

Conversation

@yhwang

@yhwang yhwang commented Dec 11, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Refine the static and shared lib build process in order
to integrate static and shared lib verfication into CI.
When building both static and shared lib, we still build
node executable now and it uses the shared and static lib.

Fixes: #14158

Signed-off-by: Yihong Wang [email protected]

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

build

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

juancampa reacted with hooray emoji
All reactions
  • 🎉 1 reaction
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the build Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure. label Dec 11, 2017
@yhwang yhwang mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2017
doc: better document --shared build #14158
Closed
@gibfahn
gibfahn requested review from bnoordhuis and danbev December 11, 2017 11:46
gibfahn
gibfahn reviewed Dec 11, 2017
View reviewed changes
Comment thread node.gyp Outdated

@gibfahn gibfahn Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was discussing this with Yihong last week, and I think it's worth pointing this out specifically.

In the Unix build, we build libnode.so (which gets linked as -lnode) and node (the binary).

In Windows, we can't build node.dll and node.exe, because the node.pdb and node.lib files clash. So this PR currently builds node.exe as node-win.exe to avoid the clash.

I guess the alternatives would be:

  1. Find some neat way to avoid the conflicts and still call it node.exe (sounds like this isn't possible, but maybe there's a way).
  2. Call them node-win.dll and node.exe (I think this is worse than what the PR does currently).

So assuming 1. isn't possible, I'm leaning towards what this PR does, I guess the only downside is that the dll and pdb files will have the wrong names, maybe they should be renamed too?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

yhwang reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

@yhwang yhwang Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

or keep using node-win.exe and modify the test.py to pick up the new name in windows platform for this case?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

@digitalinfinity digitalinfinity Dec 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I understand correctly, the problem is the clash in the symbol name? Can you use /Fd with VC++to specify the pdb filename?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
gibfahn
gibfahn reviewed Dec 11, 2017
View reviewed changes
Comment thread node.gyp Outdated

@gibfahn gibfahn Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we should split cctest into internal and external tests, that way we could test the shared library on the external cctest tests.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

@yhwang yhwang Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good point. I think it depends on the value of running cctest against the shared lib. If it's good and necessary, then we should do it.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

A summary for the change:

  • In default build process, the static lib is built first and used to build the executable.
  • For ./configure --enable-static or .\vcbuild.bat static, they do the same thing as default build process
  • For ./configure --shared or .\vcbuild.bat dll, the shared lib is built first and the executable links to the shared lib.

For cctest, since it depends some internal APIs, it can only build from obj files in all of the cases.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I hit two Windows issues mainly when creating this PR, including:

  • building shared lib and executable with the same filename causes the filename collision.
  • when using the static lib to build the executable, even using /WHOLEARCHIVE to include
    the static lib into the executable, the functions that are not used by node_main.cc are optimized out

For first one, there are two ways to solve it (maybe more):

  • using different filename for shared lib and executable (I used this in the PR)
  • output to different sub folder

For the second one, I found two approaches,

  • use /INCLUDE option in linker. You put function names in /INCLUDE option and use comma as separator for multiple functions. Linker finds the obj files for each of the function name you specified and include the whole objs into the executable.
  • build the executable from obj files but not static lib.

Since our purpose is to used the static lib to build the executable and verify it. I used /INCLUDE in my PR. And /INCLUDE could also be coded inside the node_main.cc as #pragma. For now, I do it in the node.gyp

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@mhdawson

mhdawson commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@digitalinfinity can you take a look as many of the challenges were around windows.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@mhdawson

mhdawson commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

My 2 cents given the choices for the name of the exe and the dll I think we want to:

  1. keep the naming as node.dll so we don't break existing users
  2. do the rename to node.exe from node-win.exe (as the PR currently does) so that tests that spawn node.js still work

I do wonder if there is any dependency on node.exe when the addons built or if they just use the node.pdb and node.lib files (ie addons would build/run fine without node.exe)

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@mhdawson

mhdawson commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

CI run to validate tests pass across platforms in base case (particularly interested in AIX were there was some extra steps previously) https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/12040/

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@mhdawson It's good to run CI for verifying. I do see the failures. let me check those failures

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@mhdawson

mhdawson commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

If you need access to AIX to test out changes just let me know

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Yes, I need to access AIX to verify the change

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@digitalinfinity

digitalinfinity commented Dec 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

(cc @joaocgreis @bzoz since I'm technically on vacation 😄)

@yhwang forgive me, I'm missing a bit of context here so I'll ask a somewhat basic question- in your case where you're building the exe out of the static lib, what is the problem if functions not used by the exe are optimized out? Or is the problem that the exe fails to link?

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@digitalinfinity I guess you were asking about Windows specifically, right? Yes, unused functions are optimized out, the N-API. Because N-API is used by user addon. In node_main.cc, N-API is not used. That's why I added /INCLUDE napi_module_register and the whole node_api.o is included into the exe. It would be good to run a dumpbin /exports Release\node.exe to see if there is any other function is optimized out. However, I locally run the .\vcbuild.bat test. seems the N-API is the only one. But comparing the output of dumpbin will be better. I am fixing the AIX issue now. I will circle back to this later.

And this issue only exists in Windows, in other platforms, the force_load or archive_whole options include the whole static lib into the executable.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang
yhwang force-pushed the add-node-lib branch from 5898f11 to 9426e5d Compare December 12, 2017 09:28
@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Updated my change to address AIX failure. May I have another CI to verify the AIX build?

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@gireeshpunathil

gireeshpunathil commented Dec 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/12057/

yhwang reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang
yhwang force-pushed the add-node-lib branch from 9426e5d to 50e4d08 Compare December 12, 2017 20:30
@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

updated the change to fix fips related failures. Please kick off another CI. Thanks

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@mhdawson

mhdawson commented Dec 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Another CI run: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/12067/console

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@digitalinfinity

digitalinfinity commented Dec 13, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@yhwang that's very odd- the NAPI methods are marked as __declspec(dllexport) so whole-program-optimization shouldn't optimize it away. The other question is, is it common for native module authors to link against the node exe on Windows rather than the node static lib? If not, as long as the lib has the methods that we want, we should be fine, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were modules that linked directly against the exe.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@digitalinfinity

digitalinfinity commented Dec 13, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Actually, I asked around and noticed this: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140321-00/?p=1433

So @yhwang it looks like the behavior you're seeing is by design and if we want those functions to actually get exported, the solution is to probably use a .DEF file

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 13, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

is it common for native module authors to link against the node exe on Windows rather than the node static lib?

For link, I guess people may choose shared lib. But I don’t know how many pepole use node.exe with node.dll. and agree with you that people may link to the exe for native modules.

I fixed AIX failure and found we use .exp in AIX. However, the way to generate the exp is not perfect yet. maybe we could refine the script and use it for AIX and Windows. I could create another PR for it later.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 14, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I am trying to find the failure in windows with VS 2017 now. The weird thing is I am using VS 2017 and I can build the node without any issue. Trying to recreate it first.

For smartos, @cjihrig can I access the smartos env in CI? Then I can try to fix the failure. Thanks.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

for the windows failures, I can recreated it after I updated my VS2017. and the reason is one static project can't have more then one .res file. maybe merge the node_etw and node_perfctr into one... let me try it. If anyone has suggestion for this, please let me know.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@cjihrig

cjihrig commented Dec 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

For smartos, @cjihrig can I access the smartos env in CI? Then I can try to fix the failure. Thanks.

@yhwang, I don't have access to any of the CI machines, but someone from the build group might be able to help. cc: @mhdawson

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang
yhwang force-pushed the add-node-lib branch from 50e4d08 to be06ac0 Compare December 15, 2017 07:05
@yhwang

yhwang commented Dec 15, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

For Windows, I updated change and the .rc files are compiled and included in shared lib and executable. For static lib case, users need to add .rc files to their projects by themselves.

May I have a new CI to verify the Windows build? If everything goes well, then only smartos left.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@MylesBorins MylesBorins removed the backport-requested-v6.x label Mar 21, 2018
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2018
@yhwang @MylesBorins
build: refine static and shared lib build
ddcfffb
Refine the static and shared lib build process in order
to integrate static and shared lib verfication into CI.
When building both static and shared lib, we still build
node executable now and it uses the shared and static lib.

Signed-off-by: Yihong Wang <[email protected]>

Refs: #14158
Backport-PR-URL: #19050
PR-URL: #17604
Reviewed-By: Bartosz Sosnowski <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Daniel Bevenius <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2018
@yhwang @MylesBorins
build: refine static and shared lib build
a3111ba
Refine the static and shared lib build process in order
to integrate static and shared lib verfication into CI.
When building both static and shared lib, we still build
node executable now and it uses the shared and static lib.

Signed-off-by: Yihong Wang <[email protected]>

Refs: #14158
PR-URL: #17604
Reviewed-By: Bartosz Sosnowski <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Daniel Bevenius <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 30, 2018
@yhwang @MylesBorins
build: refine static and shared lib build
49d8c2e
Refine the static and shared lib build process in order
to integrate static and shared lib verfication into CI.
When building both static and shared lib, we still build
node executable now and it uses the shared and static lib.

Signed-off-by: Yihong Wang <[email protected]>

Refs: #14158
Backport-PR-URL: #19050
PR-URL: #17604
Reviewed-By: Bartosz Sosnowski <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Daniel Bevenius <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 30, 2018
@yhwang @MylesBorins
build: refine static and shared lib build
658dd40
Refine the static and shared lib build process in order
to integrate static and shared lib verfication into CI.
When building both static and shared lib, we still build
node executable now and it uses the shared and static lib.

Signed-off-by: Yihong Wang <[email protected]>

Refs: #14158
PR-URL: #17604
Reviewed-By: Bartosz Sosnowski <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Daniel Bevenius <[email protected]>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Apr 13, 2018
v6.14.2 proposal #19996
Merged
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request May 2, 2018
v8.11.2 proposal #20478
Merged
@refack refack mentioned this pull request May 25, 2018
need to cover ninja build on windows nodejs/build#1288
Closed
@refack

refack commented May 25, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

P.S. this change broke ninja build on Windows (due to use of presumed location of *.lib files in a <(PRODUCT_DIR)\\lib directory, which ninja does not do).
I'm investigating ways to work around this.

I opened nodejs/build#1288 so that once we get this working again we can keep it from regressing unintentionaly.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@yhwang

yhwang commented May 25, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@refack I can help to solve the issue. But I don't know how to use ninja to build node in windows. do you have any instruction?

BTW, currently, the master branch has an error when using .\vcbuild.bat dll. The problem is the cctest can't link to the shared lib in Windows, since some symbols that cctest need are not exported. I am trying to fix that.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@refack refack mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2018
Discussion: How should the Node executable + Node shared library be distributed? #24028
Closed
@richardlau richardlau mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2019
LIBPATH issue in AIX node binary #25444
Closed
richardlau added a commit to richardlau/node-1 that referenced this pull request Jan 11, 2019
@richardlau
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
36839de
nodejs#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: nodejs#25444
@richardlau richardlau mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2019
build: set -blibpath: for AIX #25447
Closed
1 of 2 tasks
addaleax pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2019
@richardlau @addaleax
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
bd8d682
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
addaleax pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2019
@richardlau @addaleax
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
a4f50a6
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
@richardlau richardlau mentioned this pull request Jan 15, 2019
[v8.x backport] build: set -blibpath: for AIX #25521
Closed
1 of 2 tasks
BridgeAR pushed a commit to BridgeAR/node that referenced this pull request Jan 16, 2019
@richardlau @BridgeAR
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
5a67471
nodejs#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: nodejs#25444

PR-URL: nodejs#25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
@richardlau richardlau mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2019
Final 6.x release before EOL? [Discussion] nodejs/Release#414
Closed
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2019
@richardlau @BethGriggs
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
15756e0
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2019
@richardlau @BethGriggs
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
13f9356
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2019
@richardlau @BethGriggs
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
5711238
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2019
@richardlau @rvagg
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
156e4c8
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
richardlau added a commit to richardlau/node-1 that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2019
@richardlau
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
30be5ef
nodejs#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: nodejs#25444

Backport-PR-URL: nodejs#25521
PR-URL: nodejs#25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
@richardlau richardlau mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2019
[v6.x backport] build: set -blibpath: for AIX #26478
Closed
2 tasks done
richardlau added a commit to richardlau/node-1 that referenced this pull request Mar 12, 2019
@richardlau
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
7b34f81
nodejs#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: nodejs#25444

Backport-PR-URL: nodejs#26478
PR-URL: nodejs#25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2019
@richardlau @BethGriggs
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
c9d21a0
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

Backport-PR-URL: #26478
PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
BethGriggs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2019
@richardlau @BethGriggs
build: set -blibpath: for AIX
e936907
#17604 refactored the gyp files
so that `-blibpath:` on AIX was only set if `node_shared=="true"`.
Restore the setting for non-shared builds.

Fixes: #25444

Backport-PR-URL: #25521
PR-URL: #25447
Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis bnoordhuis approved these changes
+4 more reviewers
@digitalinfinity digitalinfinity digitalinfinity left review comments
@gibfahn gibfahn gibfahn left review comments
@danbev danbev danbev approved these changes
@bzoz bzoz bzoz approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

build Issues and PRs related to Node.js builds or CI infrastructure.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

doc: better document --shared build

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

14 participants

@yhwang @mhdawson @digitalinfinity @gireeshpunathil @cjihrig @bnoordhuis @gibfahn @joyeecheung @MylesBorins @refack @danbev @bzoz @addaleax @nodejs-github-bot
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.