Alexandre
thanks for the review :-)
> -pedantic review: how about outputting to a temporary file (say
> cp/cfns.hT) and only renaming to the intended name on success, so that,
> if gperf crashes or we reboot part-way through it, we don't end up with
> a partially-generated file that will seem to
On Apr 23, 2011, "Nicola Pero" wrote:
> Ok to commit ?
Yeah, thanks.
> Index: ChangeLog
> +2011-04-22 Nicola Pero
> +
> + * Makefile.in (ENABLE_MAINTAINER_RULES): New.
> +
> Index: cp/ChangeLog
> +2011-04-23 Nicola Pero ,
> + Mike Stump
> +
> + * Make-lang.in ($(srcd
>> Ok?
>
> Ping?
PS: For the maintainer who will (eventually) review this patch,
the latest version, tested and with all the comments and contributions
from Joseph and Mike merged in, is --
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg01930.html
So, that's the one to review.
On Apr 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 8:12 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
>> This patch fixes a building annoyance that I had when building on a new
>> machine (an x86_64 gnu/linux box).
>>
>> The building failed. It was down to two problems:
>>
>> * due to how I got a cop
On Apr 23, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> What is the reason to keep the rule without the dependency ? Is it so that
> even with --disable-maintainer-mode you can force the file to be recreated by
> manually deleting it ?
Yes. Think of it as a really cheap maintainer mode. Another way
> Additionally,
>
> contrib/gcc_update --touch
>
> can be used to to fix the time stamps until such time as someone changes the
> gperf rule to be under maintainer mode.
Thanks Mike,
good to know. :-)
> So, only the dependency should go away under a maintainer rules, as in the
> below, not t
On Apr 22, 2011, at 8:12 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> This patch fixes a building annoyance that I had when building on a new
> machine (an x86_64 gnu/linux box).
>
> The building failed. It was down to two problems:
>
> * due to how I got a copy of the GCC source code on the machine, the timestamp
> We have a --enable-maintainer-mode configure option.
Thanks - I had missed that option. It's an excellent suggestion - here is
a new patch that uses it. :-)
Ok to commit ?
Thanks
PS: Regarding how I detect --enable-maintainer-mode in this new patch,
cp/Make-lang.in
is used at it is, without
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Nicola Pero wrote:
> In general, I personally feel that the building system should not depend
> on the relative timestamps of source files unless it's doing something
> in "maintainer mode" where it's being explicitly asked to rebuild one
> source file from the other.
We h
This patch fixes a building annoyance that I had when building on a new
machine (an x86_64 gnu/linux box).
The building failed. It was down to two problems:
* due to how I got a copy of the GCC source code on the machine, the timestamp
of each source file was the timestamp of when it was copied
10 matches
Mail list logo
