This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bootstrap failure, gcc HEAD, --disable-shared, gnatlib-plain
- From: Arnaud Charlet <charlet at ACT-Europe dot FR>
- To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
- Cc: charlet at act-europe dot fr, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: bootstrap failure, gcc HEAD, --disable-shared, gnatlib-plain
- References: <20040423212227.5CA3E4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <4089C28D.3050505@twcny.rr.com>
> Arnaud, I'm reverting much of your recent change to libada; it's causing
> this. In particular, the collapsing of multiple targets into one with
Right, although it was trivially fixable.
Also, having duplicated ajd almost identical code is also a good source
of bugs, so I disagree with the above.
> $@ was done wrong. Apart from the error above, there's also the sudden
> removal of GNATLIBLDFLAGS from the flags passed to gnatlib-shared.
Also easily fixable.
> Futhermore, I don't actually think they should be collapsed at the
> moment; it invites further bugs. :-P
I disagree, it reduces the potential for bugs and discrepencies.
> Apart from that, there are the stylistic issues; overuse of GNU make
> syntax is significantly less maintainable than using 'configure'
> properly. ;-)
I also disagree, I find the use of GNU Make very handful.
I just believe you (and other GCC folks) are not yet ready to use these
features, that's all :-)
Having used GNU Make for GNAT for years now (compare to a very recent
switch in that direction for the rest of GCC), I find it very valuable,
and find overuse of configure not necessarily preferrable, in particular
since configure is by itself a big hack which is painful to maintain :-)
Anyway, I don't have any particular problem with your proposed patch.
What I really didn't like in your previous change was the overuse of 'sh'
embedded in Makefile, which *is* very error-prone and painful to maintain.
Arno