This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Request for Assistance: GCC 3.3.1 Code-Gen Problems
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pme at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:22:06 -0400
- Subject: Re: Request for Assistance: GCC 3.3.1 Code-Gen Problems
- References: <200307151719.h6FHJnZg016582@minax.codesourcery.com> <email@example.com> <20030716211719.GA11916@disaster.jaj.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.BSF.email@example.com> <023401c35686$6d7fbc00$050b24d5@fr> <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 06:55:44PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >> Lines 3-5 here are exactly what we recommend in general, so either this
> >> occurence is redundant (-> long term maintainance issue) or the general
> >> description is not sufficient (and should be improved instead).
> > Not exactly: the build instructions use 'make' instead of 'gmake'.
> Well, make can be any of a lot of different 'make's (including GNU make)
> and 'gmake' not necessarily exists (especially if 'make' = GNU make) so
> I think it's better to just use 'make' everywhere.
What should be done with the paragraph following the example, which explains
what gmake is? Remove it altogether, or just remind the reader that GNU
make is recommended over Sun make?
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams