This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.0.2 and BSD Make
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.0.2 and BSD Make
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:21:16 -0700
- Cc: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry at wasabisystems dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com" <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:07:42AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Well, that's not exactly a great way to release a version of gcc. It
> > implies dependencies on gnu make, which means that other kinds of make
> > on other platforms might also break attempting to build.
> Standard litany: GCC is a volunteer project, if volunteers care to fix
> this, great; if not, oh well. Loren tried, but he wasn't successful;
> knowing Loren, that means it's hard, but I suspect that he will
> succeed shortly.
> We have actually though about formally requiring GNU Make; there a lot
> of ways in which this would make things easier. Personally, I don't
> find the bootstrapping argument too persuasive; after all, GNU Make
> builds with any C compiler, and you could always build a cross-compiler
> to build it, and nowadays very few people are bootstrapping raw systems
> from scratch. But, the BSD people disagree with me, which is fine,
> and what's more the majority of the SC disagrees with me, which is
> also fine, so we will continue to attempt to support any POSIX make
> for the forseeable future.
FWIW, I don't see anything wrong for gcc to require GNU make. Last time when
I checked, gcc is still a GNU software. I believe it will result in smaller,
cleaner Makefiles. We can always include GNU make in the gcc source and
build it first during configure if necessary.