This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC-3.2.2 pre-release (second iteration)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:34:34AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Greg Schafer <gschafer@zip.com.au> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | Building from the tarball shows the failures whereas building from CVS is
> | fine for me:-
> |
> | tarball:
> | http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-01/msg01382.html
> |
> | CVS:
> | http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-01/msg01325.html
>
> Thanks for piece of information.
>
> | It is probably the bison thing as Paolo suggested. But I thought the
> | maintainer scripts were supposed to adjust the timestamps so as not to rely
> | on the bison in the user's environment. Dunno.
>
> I believe that the maintainer scripts aren't that smart :-(
Just one more piece of info for you:-
tarball:
gcc/c-parse.c says /* A Bison parser, made by GNU Bison 1.875. */
CVS
gcc/c-parse-c says /* A Bison parser, made from c-parse.y
by GNU bison 1.35. */
I have bison 1.75 installed on my system, In other words, when I compile from
CVS, gcc/c-parse.c is not being regenerated (like I would expect). The
gcc_update script is adjusting the timestamps for the generated files for
me. I wonder why this is not true for your build environment?
Greg