Hi!
On 2011-04-13T06:49:31-0400, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> [...]
> This Makefile is supposed to give coverage of all the main configure targets
> and notable variants that enable different config files.
> [...]
> --- contrib/config-list.mk(revision 0)
> +++ contrib/config-list.mk(revision
On May 2, 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> 2010-04-14 Joern Rennecke
> * config-list.mk: New file.
Ok, thanks!
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin Am
Quoting Joern Rennecke :
2010-04-14 Joern Rennecke
* config-list.mk: New file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg01044.html
2010-04-14 Joern Rennecke
* config-list.mk: New file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg01044.html
Quoting Jan-Benedict Glaw :
On Thu, 2011-04-14 04:12:31 -0400, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
...
+$(LOGFILES) : log/%-make.out : %
+ -$(MAKE) -C $< $(TEST) > $@ 2>&1 && rm -rf $<
I don't know how chatty you all like your Makefiles to be, but what
about putting `tee' into the output redire
On Thu, 2011-04-14 04:12:31 -0400, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> --- contrib/config-list.mk(revision 0)
> +++ contrib/config-list.mk(revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
[...]
> +$(LIST): make-log-dir make-script-dir
> + -mkdir $@
> + (cd $@ && \
> + ../../gcc/configure \
> + --target
Quoting Ralf Wildenhues :
Can you separate the configure and the build steps into separate make
targets so that one can run one but not the other? Or would that have
adverse effects on the load pattern (it might, due to the way make
orders scheduling of jobs)?
I've added a separate target 'co
Hi Joern,
* Joern Rennecke wrote on Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:02:27PM CEST:
> 2010-04-13 Joern Rennecke
>
> * config-list.mk: New file.
> --- contrib/config-list.mk(revision 0)
> +++ contrib/config-list.mk(revision 0)
> +all: $(LIST)
> +
> +.PHONEY: make-log-dir make-script-dir
On 4/13/2011 3:10 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The person who volunteered for Interix is Douglas B Rupp.
I'm still good for it.
--Doug
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > It's up to the people who volunteered to maintain Interix and SCORE to get
> > them into a state that builds cleanly - and you can make sure they are
> > CC:ed on the relevant bugs and point out that without fixes the targets
> > will be removed later
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
I think Interix and SCORE should be included, but probably only one of
Solaris 8 and Solaris 9 needs to be included for each of x86 and SPARC
since the targets don't appear significantly different - so no need to
include Solaris 8 at all if you include Solaris 9 for b
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> This is based on config-list.mk in the pr46489-20101227-branch, but with
> configurations removed that have been recently removed or obsoleted.
On the whole I think the obsolete but not yet removed targets should be
included in the list with --enable-
Quoting Rainer Orth :
alpha-dec-osf5.1
Would you care to report the kind of breakage you found? This may
simply be a case of mips-t* only being buildable native (PR
target/3746) and gas/gld not supporting the target.
Yes, that's what it is.
gcc -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCT
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Global patches that affect various configurations in various ways tend to
> break configurations. People usually make an effort with global search and
> replace, but all too often some details are overlooked (or simply mistyped).
>
> This Makefile is supposed to give cov
Global patches that affect various configurations in various ways tend to
break configurations. People usually make an effort with global search and
replace, but all too often some details are overlooked (or simply mistyped).
This Makefile is supposed to give coverage of all the main configure t
15 matches
Mail list logo
