Re: Parallel build of libgcc is broken.

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 12:50:50PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 12:36:05PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > Parall build of libgcc is broken since libgcc may not exist when
> > it is written to. This patch
> > 
> > http://www.lucon.org/gcc/3.0/gcc-3.0-gcc-parallel.patch
> > 
> > seems to work for me.
> 
> I've now stared at your patch for ten minutes and the only part I see
> that's conceivably relevant to parallel make is
> 
> -    echo "${dir}:; mkdir ${dir}"
> -    echo "libgcc/${dir}:; mkdir libgcc/${dir}"
> -    all="$all libgcc/${dir} ${dir}"
> +    echo "${dir}:; -mkdir ${dir}"
> +    echo "libgcc/${dir}: ${dir}; -mkdir libgcc/${dir}"
> 
> which causes the directory inside libgcc to depend on the directory
> outside.  Which does not fix the problem.  I think you meant
> 
>      echo "libgcc/${dir}: libgcc; -mkdir libgcc/${dir}"

Thanks. I updated my patch. I don't have machines with multilibs. I
didn't check it.

> 
> The other 45 lines of the patch have nothing to do with the problem as
> far as I can tell.

That is why it is broken. If it works for you, you don't have to do
anything. There are quite a few build bugs in the gcc tree. You can
search the old egcs mailing list archive for my bug reports and 
patches. I will keep updating my patch colletion for gcc 3.0. I
need to update my gcc 2.95 patches for 3.0.

> 
> I won't do this again.  If you want people to look at your patches,
> post the *patch*, not a URL, to *gcc-patches*, not gcc, and include a
> ChangeLog and an explanation of why it fixes the bug.
> 

I didn't ask anyone to look at my patches. I only want to share what
I know. However, any suggestions are more than welcome. Please feel
free to do whatever you want with it.


H.J.