This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: new build scheme naming


On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 08:44:18AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Of course, the executables aren't in the same directory you type 'make'
> > in right now; they're in subdirectories.
> 
> If you're debugging gcc, the current directory is the gcc
> subdirectory.  You type "make cc1" and it builds cc1 right there, and

That actually *works*?  It doesn't fail because the million Make
variables passed down from the top level are missing?...

Why are we passing all these variables down to lower level makes?
I understand the ones which locate programs which live in the tree 
(although they *should* be redundant because the variables are already
passed down to lower level configures), but there are plenty of others.
Maybe I can kill some, or even all, of them, and save a fortune on
'make' command line length and clarity?

--Nathanael


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]