This is the mail archive of the 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: toplevel generate with autogen

On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:09:20PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2002, Nathanael Nerode <> wrote:
> > This change causes toplevel to be generated by autogen from
> > Makefile.tpl and Makefile.def; consensus was reached a while back that
> > this was a reasonable thing to do.
> Hmm...  I thought this would also move into Makefile.def the
> dependencies of each module (configure, build and perhaps install
> dependencies).  I think this would be a nice improvement in the
> future, since the information would all be collected in a single
> place.
Hmm.  Good idea, might simplify certain issues I encountered in my last
full attempt.  I'll try it.  If not, the dependencies will be explicit in
Makefile.tpl (except for the dependency of all-x on configure-x, which
will be automatic, of course).

I'm doing things the proverbial bit at a time.  This first step is the
least dangerous in terms of introducing bugs...

> Also, I've noticed that parallel make recently hasn't been as
> efficient as it was in the past as to processing multiple directories
> simultaneously.  It appears that these days it only processes
> directories sequentially, even though they're not using as many
> processes as specified for the top-level make -j.  I thought this
> might have been caused by changes in make itself, but last week I've
> been working with parallel makes on an old branch and I found out it
> was not the case: it's actually something that changed in the GCC
> build infrastructure.  Could I perhaps convince you to have a look?
> :-)
* cough *

Look at the NOTPARALLEL specification in  This was done by
someone to prevent contention over shared resources.  This wouldn't be a
problem if all dependencies were properly expressed in the Makefile,
which they will be when I'm done.  (But they're not yet, and it's a *big*
task, so I didn't want to take it out until I was a lot closer to done.)

> I'd approve this patch (with the same caveats) if it had a ChangeLog
Right, of course....

> entry and it accompanied documentation changes that introduced the
> dependency on autogen and explained how to rebuild from
> its new dependencies.  A new rule to that end in would
Where should I add documentation changes?  I'll add the rule certainly,
that's easy (and something I was intending to do eventually anyway).

> definitely be welcome.  config/gcc_update should also be adjusted.
Hmm, must take a look at that one, didn't know about it. :-)

> -- 
> Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see


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