This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: toplevel autoconfiscation design questions
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:30:25PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I've got fairly complete working autoconfiscations of the toplevel
> > directory going several times now. Several important design choices
> > have come up:
> >
> > * Should subdir/configure scripts be invoked from the top level
> > configure (where it is now), or from the top level Makefile? (I've
> > worked out how to do both.)
> >
> > Arguments for the configure script: no locking issues with the cache,
> > better documentation of options when & if we move to autoconf2.5x, what
> > else?
> >
> > Arguments for the Makefile: configuration parallel with other processes,
> > don't configure subdirs you aren't using today, what else?
>
> The most important is that many directories can not be configured until
> after others are built. For instance, newlib requires GCC and binutils
> to have been built, because it's a target library.
Those will of course have to be in the makefile; the question is
regarding the, hmm, 'host' subdirectories, and 'build' subdirectories if
there are any. So I guess there's also a 'the target subdirs are there,
why not all of them?' argument.
> > * Should the logic for ignoring missing subdirectories be in the
> > Makefile (where it is now), or in the configure script?
> >
> > Arguments for configure: this is really a configure-time issue, it's
> > slower and uglier in the Makefile, what else?
> >
> > Arguments for Makefile: it's there now, moving it may reveal subtle
> > issues, what else?
>
> FWIW (absolutely nothing!) I'd like it in configure. It would also be
> nice to let the user specify which directories to configure, but if
> you're going to do that there's a strong argument for moving this and
> all subdir configuration to the makefile.
After looking at everything, I don't see a clean way to put *both*
subdir configuration *and* proper treatment of missing directories into
the makefile. There is probably a very messy way....
--Nathanael Nerode