This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [patch 1/28] top-level: Use automake-1.11.6
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- Cc: Michael Haubenwallner <michael dot haubenwallner at ssi-schaefer dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Ralf Wildenhues <ralf dot wildenhues at gmx dot de>, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 16:41:02 +0000
- Subject: RE: [patch 1/28] top-level: Use automake-1.11.6
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5548E9C3 dot 1090408 at ssi-schaefer dot com> <5549D5F1 dot 50308 at ssi-schaefer dot com>,<alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1505061554210 dot 21257 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <DUB118-W1661F951B67EAF76890D01E4DF0 at phx dot gbl>,<alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1505071523270 dot 19474 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <DUB118-W1623644A5CFCDA450141BAE4DE0 at phx dot gbl>
On Fri, 8 May 2015, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> One example where there is an incompatibility is "missing":
>
> Formerly it had code that emulated the missing "flex" by
> creating a dummy lex.yy.c from the hopefully installed
> pre-compiled flex output file. But the version from the
> trunk does nothing, which breaks all configure scripts
> that used AM_PROG_LEX. I do assume that the
> automake scripts just use a different way to achieve
> the same goal, if flex is not installed.
It seems like a bug to me that "missing" changed its interface. However,
since GCC doesn't use flex in any directory that uses, or is a
subdirectory of a directory that uses, automake, clearly that change is of
no relevance to the version of automake used in GCC. In any case, GCC
release tarballs should always have timestamps in the right order for
non-checked-in generated files, and contrib/gcc_update should always be
used when checking out checked-in generated files to get the timestamps in
the right order, so no supported case of building GCC should ever get as
far as trying to use "missing" to regenerate something unless there are
bugs in the makefiles, gcc_update etc.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com