Re: Death to configure.frag

[neroden at twcny dot rr dot com (Nathanael Nerode)]

Zack wrote:
>Are you still okay with it with the ifneq() wrapper instead of 
>/dev/null?
Yes.


>> This change is not OK (yet).  The passing of 
>> CONFIG_HEADERS and CONFIG_FILES is cryptic and undocumented.  
>
>Er?  It is clearly documented in the autoconf 2.13 manual, as the
>recommended way to get config.status to update just one file.  I would
>like to use the command line switches introduced in 2.50 but we're not
>there yet.
Riiight. I've been reading the 2.5x manual and haven't been looking at 
the obsolete parts.  :-)

(As a matter of fact, the GCC configure.in is fully 2.5x compatible 
already, although Alex has some improvements he'd like to make.)

>I will move the rule to update ada/Makefile.in to ada/Make-lang.in and
>make this a plain old single-target rule.  Note that this rule doesn't
>do anything to fixinc/Makefile.  (It would be pretty easy to merge
>fixinc/Makefile.in into the top level Makefile.in.)

>However, I hope that pattern rules in general are acceptable; there's
Yes.

>a lot more that can be done with them, e.g. eliminating the explicit
>commands for all files built with $(BUILD_CC).
An excellent use!

>  I would also like to
>use per-target variable settings in preference to the $($@-warn) hack.
Not quite sure how you're planning to do that with pattern rules, so I 
guess I'll have to wait and see.  :-)

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html