This is the mail archive of the egcs@egcs.cygnus.com mailing list for the EGCS project. See the EGCS home page for more information.
>Now back to the g77 problem. Do you know why people have problem with
>intdoc.texi in g77? It is not a new problem. BTW, I have fed up with
>it and fixed it in egcs 1.1.2/Linux. Here is my ChangeLog entry:
>
>Thu Feb 18 09:06:23 1999 H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)
>
> * Makefile.in (f77.start.encap): Add $(srcdir)/f/intdoc.texi.
>
>It may not be the best fix. But it works for me.
I can't find anything about what start.encap does, except for a
one-liner in gcc/Makefile.in, which I interpret to mean the
above change is rather inappropriate.
I don't know offhand why people have a problem with intdoc.texi,
other than the usual: it's a derived file, shipped with the distribution,
but updated when the files from which it is derived are more recent.
(These include intdoc.in, intrin.def, etc.)
Also, I've not written this down as a to-do item, but I'm going to now:
I believe the other problem is that egcs 1.0 and 1.1 relegate building
the Info docs to the *installation* phase (`make install'), whereas
that should be done as part of the *build* phase. I'd like this to
be fixed for egcs 1.2, barring evidence that it can't or shouldn't
be done for some reason.
So, perhaps the combination of the problems we typically have shipping
derived files anyway and the problems introduced by trying to build
things during the installation phase has introduced a problem that
happens to be unique to, but not, per se, any particular fault (to
my knowledge) of, the g77 portion of egcs.
I'm in the middle of running a build/test cycle on my fixes for
-fsyntax-only. When I finish that, I might look into this soon
after, and see if there's a straightforward fix to get the
documentation to build (for bootstrap and straight builds) at
the proper time.
Even if I get it working for egcs 1.2, it doesn't seem like it's
worth putting in egcs 1.1.2, and I don't think your patch is either.
(I say this from the same standpoint: these are not critical bugs, right?
That is, the problems don't result in bad code being generated or
anything like that?)
But if others want to encourage me to try to fix the doc-build
problem in time for 1.1.2, and Jeff and others don't object,
that'd be pretty fine with me!
tq vm, (burley)
P.S. One of the reasons I've been given to not build *anything* during the
`make install' that follows the `make ...' used to build is that,
sometimes, `make install' is done via local root from an NFS directory
that resulted from a user build but to which local root has no
write access. I've gone through, probably, two or three cycles
of fixing and then, later, accidentally breaking this in g77 over
the years. It'd be nice to get it right in egcs.