Re: bug#8473: depcomp bug with HP-UX cc and VPATH build

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 07:13:00AM CEST: > Fix hp depmode for VPATH builds with GNU make. > > * lib/depcomp: Be sure to remove VPATH-prefixed object from > dependency output when creating stub rule. > * tests/depcomp10.test: New test. > * tests/Makef

Re: bug#8473: depcomp bug with HP-UX cc and VPATH build

Hi Bruno, * Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 02:44:48AM CEST: > The dependencies mechanism of Automake leads to a compilation failure when > used in a VPATH build (with GNU make, of course) Actually, in this case you could have avoided this particular bug by using HP make. :-p Automak

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} coverage: test mixed C/C++ yacc-generated parsers in the same dir

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:34:12PM CEST: > > Or, since we are doing both VPATH an in-tree builds, just continue > > with serial make if `-j' doesn't work. See the attached squash-in > > (which goes on the top of the previo

Re: [PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:23:11AM CEST: > > > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > Hmm. Did you test this though? > > > > > > > Yes, but I only have

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} coverage: test mixed C/C++ yacc-generated parsers in the same dir

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:34:12PM CEST: > Or, since we are doing both VPATH an in-tree builds, just continue > with serial make if `-j' doesn't work. See the attached squash-in > (which goes on the top of the previous squash-in). OK? OK. Thanks!

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} coverage: test mixed C/C++ yacc-generated parsers in the same dir

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:50:28PM CEST: > > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > I think it would make sense to also do parallel build tests here > > > > > Agreed (and BTW this uncovered a bug in the testc

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} coverage: test mixed C/C++ yacc-generated parsers in the same dir

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:50:28PM CEST: > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I think it would make sense to also do parallel build tests here > > > Agreed (and BTW this uncovered a bug in the testcase: I had forgotten > to add `p.h' and `parse.hh' to BUIL

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} coverage: test mixed C/C++ yacc-generated parsers in the same dir

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:57:26PM CEST: > > A final testcase I'd like to check in before submitting the final > > patch for automake bug#7648 and PR automake/491 (patch not yet > > complete ATM, but I think I'm almost ther

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} coverage: test mixed C/C++ yacc-generated parsers in the same dir

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:57:26PM CEST: > A final testcase I'd like to check in before submitting the final > patch for automake bug#7648 and PR automake/491 (patch not yet > complete ATM, but I think I'm almost there). It checks that many > different Yacc parsers (both

Re: [PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:23:11AM CEST: > > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > Hmm. Did you test this though? > > > > > Yes, but I only have javac 1.6.0 on my system, which works even with > > just the

[PATCH] {yacc-work} coverage: test mixed C/C++ yacc-generated parsers in the same dir

A final testcase I'd like to check in before submitting the final patch for automake bug#7648 and PR automake/491 (patch not yet complete ATM, but I think I'm almost there). It checks that many different Yacc parsers (both C and C++) can co-exists in the same directory. OK for yacc-work? I will

Re: [PATCH] cosmetics: fix typos and wording in some yacc tests

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:17:10AM CEST: > > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > While at it, you might want to fix > > > I've fixed that, plus some similar blunders, and added a few other > > misc fixlet

Re: [PATCH 1/2] yacc: update NEWS w.r.t. Yacc-generated headers extesions

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:46:33AM CEST: > > > OK for yacc-work? I will push in 72 hours if there is no objection. > > > > OK with nits addressed. You can squash both

Re: [PATCH 1/2] yacc: update NEWS w.r.t. Yacc-generated headers extesions

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:46:33AM CEST: > > OK for yacc-work? I will push in 72 hours if there is no objection. > > OK with nits addressed. You can squash both changes together. > I've done that, and addressed the nits.

Re: [PATCH] cosmetics: fix typos and wording in some yacc tests

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:17:10AM CEST: > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > While at it, you might want to fix > I've fixed that, plus some similar blunders, and added a few other > misc fixlets too. The resulting patch is attached. OK for yacc-work?

[PATCH] cosmetics: fix typos and wording in some yacc tests

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:26:40AM CEST: > > > > > > > Related to automake bug#7648 and PR automake/491. > > > > > > * lib/am/yacc.am (am__yacc_c

Re: [PATCH 1/2] yacc: update NEWS w.r.t. Yacc-generated headers extesions

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:46:33AM CEST: > OK for yacc-work? I will push in 72 hours if there is no objection. OK with nits addressed. You can squash both changes together. > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] yacc: update NEWS w.r.t. Yacc-generated headers extesions > --- a/NEWS >

[PATCH 2/2] yacc: update docs w.r.t. extension of yacc-generated headers

[dropping bug-automake] On Sunday 10 April 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Reference: > > > This patch has been applied in the meantime, but it lacked NEWS and > documentation updates. I will post them soonish in two di

[PATCH 1/2] yacc: update NEWS w.r.t. Yacc-generated headers extesions

[dropping bug-automake] On Sunday 10 April 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Reference: > > > This patch has been applied in the meantime, but it lacked NEWS and > documentation updates. I will post them soonish in two di

Re: bug#7648: [PATCH] {yacc-work} yacc: extension of headers modelled after extension of sources

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:26:40AM CEST: > > > > Related to automake bug#7648 and PR automake/491. > > > > * lib/am/yacc.am (am__yacc_c2h): New internal variable. > > (?GENERIC?%EXT%%DERIVED-EXT%

Re: bug#7648: [PATCH] {yacc-work} yacc: extension of headers modelled after extension of sources

Reference: On Friday 28 January 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hello automakers. The reasons of this patch should be > explained in details in the ChangeLog entry (see below). > > OK for the 'yacc-work' branch? > > Re

Re: [PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:23:11AM CEST: > On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Hmm. Did you test this though? > > > Yes, but I only have javac 1.6.0 on my system, which works even with > just the `-version' option: Oh, ok. > Maybe adding also the `-help'

Re: [PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:50:14AM CEST: > > Thanks for the fast review, > >Stefano > > Hmm. Did you test this though? > Yes, but I only have javac 1.6.0 on my system, which works even with just the `-version' option:

Re: [PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:50:14AM CEST: > Thanks for the fast review, >Stefano Hmm. Did you test this though? The tests are all skipping for me now now, but I have javac installed: SKIP: instdir-java.test (exit: 77) == /tmp/build/t

Re: [PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

On Sunday 10 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:11:07AM CEST: > > IMHO having a proper requirement for the java compiler in `tests/defs' > > would be better than the current behaviour running the check for the > > availability of javac in the g

Re: [PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:11:07AM CEST: > IMHO having a proper requirement for the java compiler in `tests/defs' > would be better than the current behaviour running the check for the > availability of javac in the generated configure script in each > relevant test. And

[PATCH] {maint} test defs: new requirement for the default java compiler

Hello automakers. IMHO having a proper requirement for the java compiler in `tests/defs' would be better than the current behaviour running the check for the availability of javac in the generated configure script in each relevant test. And it would also be faster for systems that lack a java co