This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Re%3A%5BPATCH%5D%20document%20the%20use%20of%20stamps%20in%20gcc%2FMakefile.in
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael dot espindola at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:34:27 -0200
- Subject: Re: Re%3A%5BPATCH%5D%20document%20the%20use%20of%20stamps%20in%20gcc%2FMakefile.in
- References: <F9EF56C9-BABC-47BD-BD1D-20729CE98BCE@geoffk.org> <200512041021.28688.rafael.espindola@gmail.com>
On Dec 4, 2005, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola@gmail.com> wrote:
> * gcc/Makefile.in: Document the use of stamps
> +# tree-check.h: build/gencheck$(build_exeext)
> +# $(RUN_GEN) build/gencheck$(build_exeext) > tree-check.h
> +# $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../move-if-change tmp-check.h tree-check.h
This is wrong, please change `> tree-check.h ' to `> tmp-check.h', in
all 3 occurrences in the comment.
> +# The problem with this solution is that make thinks that tree-check.h is
> +# always unchanged. Make must be deceived into thinking that tree-check.h is
> +# rebuild by the "a: s-a" rule. To do this, add a dummy command:
> +# tree-check.h: s-check; @true
If you want to elaborate it further, you may want to mention that in
some cases people will remove tree-check.h and then be confused
because it is not rebuilt. Instead of `@true', one may (should?) use
`@if [ ! -f $@ ]; then rm -f s-check; $(MAKE) s-check; fi' or so.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}