This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: toplevel Makefile.in: generate with autogen
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:09:20PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2002, Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> wrote:
> > This change causes toplevel Makefile.in 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
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 Makefile.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 Makefile.in from
> its new dependencies. A new rule to that end in Makefile.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 http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/