This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: "E. Weddington" <eric at umginc dot net>, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 18:04:44 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- References: <3ED72093.3786.323AA755@localhost><Pine.BSF.4.55.0305311710180.57679@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2003, E. Weddington wrote:
> > My bad. I checked last night and you're correct. I don't need bison /
> > flex for GCC *releases*, but they are needed to build the weekly
> > snapshots.
>
> I consider this a bug, and will happily consider patches that address
> this (without requiring a full build as part of snapshot generation).
They will likely also require manual timestamp adjustments (not gcc_update
--touch, that only deals with files in CVS) after applying patches between
snapshots, otherwise files may inconsistently get regenerated / not get
regenerated with different versions of Bison causing build failures.
(The problem can exist for releases, but it's much rarer for parsers to
change between point releases.) So you'd need - at least - to arrange for
diffs to undergo a topological sort (using an extended list of
dependencies that covers files generated for snapshots as well as those in
CVS).
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk