Re: 2 suggestions

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > I guess "x" is fine with me. However can we use "x" only in the > > anchor and not the link's text label? E.g.: > > > >alpha*-*-* > > > > That way, the part people actually read in the document still uses > > asterisk that they are us

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > This patch accomplishes the goal to get rid of asterisks in @anchor > names by > > - replacing components of a target triplet which read "*" by "x", > - and omiting trailing asterisks from all other components. > > Tested by running doc/install.texi2

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote: >> ...if we are absolutely disallowed to use "*", probably just replacing >> "*" by "x" without any prefix might be the lesser of all evils? > So long as things to get ported to the x-box? That port wouldn't be called x-box, because dash separa

Re: 2 suggestions

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: I like prepending a string, for example target= or triplet=, etc. Okay. However,... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote: If "*-*-solaris2*" should appear as/in the "name" attribute of an , prepending a name start char

Re: 2 suggestions

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: by setting Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page to the anchor. I'm not sure w

Re: 2 suggestions

> ...if we are absolutely disallowed to use "*", probably just > replacing "*" by "x" without any prefix might be the lesser of all > evils? I guess "x" is fine with me. However can we use "x" only in the anchor and not the link's text label? E.g.: alpha*-*-* That way, the part peop

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote: If "*-*-solaris2*" should appear as/in the "name" attribute of an , prepending a name start character is not enough, because this attribute is of type NMTOKEN. Therefore it cannot contain * at all. ...if we are abs

Re: 2 suggestions

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > I like prepending a string, for example target= or triplet=, etc. Okay. However,... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > If "*-*-solaris2*" should appear as/in the "name" attribute of an , > prepending a name start character is not enough, beca

RE: 2 suggestions

Original Message >From: Dave Korn >Sent: 14 April 2005 10:12 > Original Message >> From: Kaveh R. Ghazi >> Sent: 14 April 2005 01:11 > >> > I'm afraid we'll have to rename all of these in some way, either by >> > replacing "*" by "x" or by prepending some string. I'm not too fo

RE: 2 suggestions

Original Message >From: Kaveh R. Ghazi >Sent: 14 April 2005 01:11 > > I'm afraid we'll have to rename all of these in some way, either by > > replacing "*" by "x" or by prepending some string. I'm not too fond > > of either, but just using "x" instead "*" might be less ugly. > > Somew

Re: 2 suggestions

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: by setting Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page to the anchor. I'm not sure w

Re: 2 suggestions

> I'm afraid we'll have to rename all of these in some way, either by > replacing "*" by "x" or by prepending some string. I'm not too fond > of either, but just using "x" instead "*" might be less ugly. > Somewhat. > What do you think? > Gerald I like prepending a string, for example targe

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: >>> Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: >>> by setting > Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page > to the anchor. I'm not sure why that is

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11:25PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: I don't know about the utility of example scripts in general, but for this specific case, I strongly feel autoconf should automatically detect this and reexec the configure script under /bin/ksh. Is

Re: 2 suggestions

Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: | | > If people would simply follow the directions here: | > by setting | > CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, | | Indeed - I stopped counting how many h

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11:25PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > I don't know about the utility of example scripts in general, but for > this specific case, I strongly feel autoconf should automatically > detect this and reexec the configure script under /bin/ksh. Is there a specific test we can

Re: 2 suggestions

> > CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, they > > wouldn't have such insane build times. I bet it cuts the 48 hours > > to single digits. > > The trouble is that *people* are building this. Googling turns up: > "Freemans rule: Nothing is so simple that it cannot be mi

Re: 2 suggestions

> > Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: > > by setting > > I think this docoument could be made more useful by having the more > specific cases refer people to the applicable more general cases. If by t

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:14:58PM -0400, Ray Holme wrote: > Perhaps this is why I use /bin/sh for all scripts I write - tis leaner and > meaner by far. But the implementation provided by several vendors (Solaris, AIX) is *extremely* slow for some operations, so slow as to add 24 hours to the time

Re: 2 suggestions

Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: If people would simply follow the directions here: by setting CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, Indeed - I stopped counting how many hours of debugging shell scripts on our Sun server I saved (fo

Re: 2 suggestions

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote: So, I'd like to know if the variations in how to build GCC are so numerous that having a collection of example build scripts is a stupid idea. I think that examples are valuable in aiding understanding. Examples often seem clearer than descriptive text, though the

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 > > hours for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still [...] > > Configure with --disable-libgcj. I even considered making this the [...] Not necessary.

Re: 2 suggestions

This is why I suggested several parameters to the question. Assumedly if the parameters were the same, so would the answer be. Note that lots of scripts do the same style confuring and a dictionary or param-set responses was what I was suggesting. It was merely a simple suggestion and I believe it

Re: 2 suggestions

>Also it helps a lot to remove paths to directories over the network (like >NFS) >from PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH if this is possible. Saves me half of >bootstrap time with our crappy network setup here at university. > Old trick and highly relevent - but this sun mounts nothing NFS wise. Thanks,

Re: 2 suggestions

Perhaps this is why I use /bin/sh for all scripts I write - tis leaner and meaner by far. Course it cannot do some things - but so far that has never been a problem. Ray Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thursday, April 7, 2005 at 12:56 PM wrote: >> Not necessary. If people would simply f

Re: 2 suggestions

> Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: > by setting > CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, they > wouldn't have such insane build times. I bet it cuts the 48 hours to > single digits. Sure,

Re: 2 suggestions

> > 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 > > hours for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still > > going - it would be very nice if one could compile the compiler and > > what it needs without having to build the entire java set (yes I > > know it

Re: 2 suggestions

On Apr 7, 2005 6:12 PM, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 hours > > for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still going - it > > would be very nice if one could compile the compiler and what it needs > > wi

Re: 2 suggestions

> 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 hours > for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still going - it > would be very nice if one could compile the compiler and what it needs > without having to build the entire java set (yes I know it is bigger and >

Re: 2 suggestions

On Apr 7, 2005 5:54 PM, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ray Holme writes: > > Ray> 2) Much of the time is spent in the several iterations of building a > Ray> product doing the convfigure steps. These are repeated ad nauseum with > the > Ray> results being obtained the hard way

Re: 2 suggestions

> Ray Holme writes: Ray> 2) Much of the time is spent in the several iterations of building a Ray> product doing the convfigure steps. These are repeated ad nauseum with the Ray> results being obtained the hard way each time. As a database person, it Ray> seems to me that by perhaps having a s

Re: 2 suggestions

> > Firstly - I love your product and have used it for years. > > I run on the Solaris Sparc platform mostly but use Linux and flavors of > Windows at times. My Sun is getting older so both of these suggestions > would help developers on less-than-super machines. > > 1) years ago GCC took about