This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PCH merge bootstrap failure on systems without flex
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:27:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: PCH merge bootstrap failure on systems without flex
- References: <200206051922.PAA03410@caip.rutgers.edu>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 15:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
> Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>
> I'm getting bootstrap failures in stage1 because there's no flex on my
> box.
>
> > checking for flex... false
> > [...]
> > false -o../../egcc-CVS20020605/gcc/gengtype-lex.c
> > ../../egcc-CVS20020605/gcc/gengtype-lex.l \
> > || ( rm -f ../../egcc-CVS20020605/gcc/gengtype-lex.c && false )
> > make[2]: *** [../../egcc-CVS20020605/gcc/gengtype-lex.c] Error 255
>
> Are we now requiring flex as part of the bootstrap process? Was this
> decision made knowingly or by accident?
I intentionally used flex. I wasn't the first to introduce it into
mainline, though; that honour goes to Tim Josling who added
gcc/treelang/lex.l. If I got the makefiles right, gengtype-lex.c
should be pregenerated in the release tarball, just like the uses of
bison.
Even before that, flex was required to build ld from CVS, so it's not
a new tool in the toolchain.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>