This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: fatal error: config.h: No such file or directory
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: bkorb at gnu dot org, aldyh at redhat dot com
- Cc: GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:13:19 +0000
- Subject: Re: fatal error: config.h: No such file or directory
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5496329E dot 8070106 at gnu dot org> <5496B069 dot 7070304 at redhat dot com> <87r3vql2gi dot fsf at reynosa dot quesejoda dot com> <5499E49C dot 20100 at gnu dot org>
On 23/12/14 21:54, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 12/23/14 09:07, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <email@example.com> writes:
>>> On 12/21/2014 02:38 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't the configure step have made config.h?
>>> It's probably because you are building in srcdir. That is not
>> Hmm, newbies run into this often enough that I wonder whether we should
>> just error out from the configuration stage.
> Yeah, we newbies who've only been fiddling it for 15 years.
> I think it a good idea. My script that does the configure & build
> is much newer though. It's only about 5 years old.
> Good error messages are really, really, really important --
> especially if you are changing requirements. Someone from
> the distant dusty past may wind up with a stubbed toe.
> Oh, another point:
> Some projects cannot be built with separate source/build directories
> and some projects (like yours) cannot be build without separation.
> So the real question is, Does it really save enough development effort
> that it is not worth doing the "you can build it either way" way?
We'd have to test it and we'd have to test building in a separate
subdir. That's a big testing effort, and it's a question of whether
it's a good way for us to spend our own time and that of our build
boxes. I say no, and agree that Aldy has a good point.