On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 13:52 +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:11:37PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:56:13PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen < > > > > pe...@parmance.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Richard Biener > > > > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > So the #ifdef ENABLE_BRIG_FE shouldn't be needed anymore > > > > > > (nor the > > > > > > configury for it). > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise this looks ok to me then. > > > > > > > > > > Attached is a patch set with that unnecessary ENABLE_BRIG_FE > > > > > macro > > > > > removed. It has also been refreshed to the latest trunk. > > > > > > > > Are you set up to commit these to trunk yourself or do you need > > > > help here? > > > > > > > > > > Pekka is still in the process of requesting an account at > > > gcc.gnu.org. > > > We agreed that I would commit the patches. > > > > > > Over Saturday and today morning, I have bootstrappet and tested > > > them > > > in various configurations (although mostly on x86_64 and only a > > > little > > > bit on aarch64) and (together with a "svn mv libgomp/plugin/hsa.h > > > include/") I have not found any issue so far. > > > > > > I suppose I should go ahead (in any case, if there is any > > > fallout, > > > reach out to me too, at least until Pekka gets his account). > > > > Yes, sounds good to me. > > > > It took me more time because I got distracted by PR 79198 and did not > want to commit another huge thing while bootstrap was still broken > for > so many people with my previous patch. Nevertheless, I have just > committed the BRIG FE as revision 244867. > > I tried to be careful (as well as quick to avoid conflicts) so I hope > there are no issues. However if there are some, throw complaints my > way at least unless Pekka gets an account at gcc.gnu.org. > > Thanks,
A deps issue for the docs I noticed when glancing through the commit: diff --git a/gcc/brig/Make-lang.in b/gcc/brig/Make-lang.in new file mode 100644 (file) index 0000000..b85b1b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/brig/Make-lang.in [...snip...] +# Documentation. + +GO_TEXI_FILES = \ + brig/gccbrig.texi \ + $(gcc_docdir)/include/fdl.texi \ + $(gcc_docdir)/include/gpl_v3.texi \ + $(gcc_docdir)/include/gcc-common.texi \ + gcc-vers.texi Presumably this should be BRIG_TEXI_FILES, rather than GO_TEXI_FILES? +# doc/gccbrig.info: $(BRIG_TEXI_FILES) +# if test "x$(BUILD_INFO)" = xinfo; then \ +# rm -f doc/gccbrig.info*; \ +# $(MAKEINFO) $(MAKEINFOFLAGS) -I $(gcc_docdir) \ +# -I $(gcc_docdir)/include -o $@ $<; \ +# else true; fi + +# doc/gccbrig.dvi: $(BRIG_TEXI_FILES) +# $(TEXI2DVI) -I $(abs_docdir) -I $(abs_docdir)/include -o $@ $< + +# doc/gccbrig.pdf: $(BRIG_TEXI_FILES) +# $(TEXI2PDF) -I $(abs_docdir) -I $(abs_docdir)/include -o $@ $< + +$(build_htmldir)/brig/index.html: $(BRIG_TEXI_FILES) + $(mkinstalldirs) $(@D) + rm -f $(@D)/* + $(TEXI2HTML) -I $(gcc_docdir) -I $(gcc_docdir)/include \ + -I $(srcdir)/brig -o $(@D) $< ...for use in describing the deps of the above. Dave
