Re: PATCH: top level makefile cleanup (prep for autoconfiscation)

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden at doctormoo dot dyndns dot org>]

On 28 Jan 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Jan 28, 2002, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@doctormoo.dyndns.org> wrote:
> 
> > The dependencies are all right, but they're far from optimal.  There's a
> > fair amount of missing dependency information in the Makefile, as well as
> > some which I know to be bogus.  As for the configure.in file, it doesn't
> > have proper dependencies, and relies on a sorting order, which is nasty.
> 
> Ok, so here's an idea, since you seem to be enjoying this project :-)
> 
> One of my quirks with the single-tree build is the long time it takes
> to configure everything, the fact that it can't be done in
> parallel, and the fact that one tool can't depend on the other having
> already been built in order to do configure tests with it.
> 
> In my dream implementation of the top-level configure/Makefile, I'd
> like the top-level configure to create just the top-level Makefile.
> Everything else should be configured and built according to Makefile
> rules.  For example, if the compiler wants an assembler to test, it
> configure-gcc should depend on all-gas, but it doesn't need to depend
> on say bison for configuration, only for building, so all-gcc would
> depend on all-bison.
> 
> Is this in your plan?  If not, perhaps you would consider putting it
> in?

This is in many ways the best way to do things.  Unless I hear arguments
to the contrary, I intend to do as much as I can this way.

This involves significant restructuring of the Makefile, but I was going
to have to do some of that anyway, and some of it should be done for speed
anyway.

--Nathanael