This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch: automatic dependencies for gcc
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 08:27:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: Patch: automatic dependencies for gcc
- References: <m3wsoe2sil.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20080308143259.GA28658@ins.uni-bonn.de>
- Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
Ralf> Which revision is your patch against?
132840. Hmm, that is a bit old -- I'll update again if there's more
testing to be done.
Ralf> I ran into a build failure but it may be due to me getting the
Ralf> merge wrong.
What happened?
>> +COMPILE = source='$<' object='$@' libtool=no \
>> + DEPDIR=$(DEPDIR) $(DEPMODE) $(depcomp) $(COMPILE.base)
Ralf> This looks like $(OUTPUT_OPTION) aka '-o $@' is missing for
Ralf> non-gcc3 which means objects from subdirs end up in gcc/,
Ralf> wrongly.
[...]
Thanks for noticing this. I will add it.
Hmm, maybe I can fake a build forcing the use of depcomp even with
gcc.
Ralf> Is GCC supposed to be compilable at all by a compiler not understanding
Ralf> "-c -o" (of which there aren't very many out there any more)?
It depends on what they are. I would prefer not to jump through hoops
here unless such a compiler is the system compiler on an "important"
platform. I've long forgotten what compilers do this, do you know?
Tom