This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Toplevel: more dependency cleanup
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: neroden at twcny dot rr dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:05:46 -0500
- Subject: Re: Toplevel: more dependency cleanup
- References: <20021118170208.GA17361@doctormoo>
> 1. all-bootstrap depends on all-libiberty. all-gcc doesn't. This seems
gcc depends on other things which depend on libiberty (like as and
ld), but go ahead and add the extra dependency anyway.
> 2. There aren't any actual dependencies on all-build-libiberty. I think
> there should be, most likely.
Before, all the all-build-* were done before the host things. At
least, they're supposed to have been. GCC uses it at the moment.
There may be others.
> (I'm not sure exactly how libiberty is used by gcc, so I'm not sure of the
> right way to correct this.)
gcc has a few programs it builds that run on the build machine. It
needs a build-libiberty to do this. So, gcc's build depends on
all-build-libiberty, but only if build != host (if build == host, the
host libiberty is used).
> * Makefile.tpl: Separate dependencies on libiberty; move *-target
Why? I'd rather have the dependencies grouped by target, not by
dependency. I.e. all the "all-binutils:" dependencies should be
> +all-bfd: all-libiberty
bfd doesn't depend on libiberty. bfd is a library. As for the rest,
have you actually checked to see if they use libiberty? Of course,
it's safe to leave the dependencies in...
> +all-target-fastjar: all-target-libiberty
> +all-target-gperf: all-target-libiberty
> +all-target-libstdc++-v3: all-target-libiberty
> +all-target-libf2c: all-target-libiberty
> +all-target-libobjc: all-target-libiberty
> +all-target-winsup: all-target-libiberty
libstdc++, libf2c, and libobjc are libraries. They shouldn't need to
depend on all-libiberty. (again, safe to leave it in for now)