This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- From: "E. Weddington" <eric at umginc dot net>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:32:41 -0600
- Subject: Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305311710180.57679@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On 31 May 2003 at 18:04, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 30 May 2003, E. Weddington wrote:
> > > My bad. I checked last night and you're correct. I don't need bison /
> > > flex for GCC *releases*, but they are needed to build the weekly
> > > snapshots.
> >
> > I consider this a bug, and will happily consider patches that address
> > this (without requiring a full build as part of snapshot generation).
Why would you consider this a bug?
> They will likely also require manual timestamp adjustments (not gcc_update
> --touch, that only deals with files in CVS) after applying patches between
> snapshots, otherwise files may inconsistently get regenerated / not get
> regenerated with different versions of Bison causing build failures.
> (The problem can exist for releases, but it's much rarer for parsers to
> change between point releases.) So you'd need - at least - to arrange for
> diffs to undergo a topological sort (using an extended list of
> dependencies that covers files generated for snapshots as well as those in
> CVS).
Why not just explicitly state that these tools (bison/flex) are required if
building weekly snapshots?
If you still consider this a bug, do you want me to go ahead fill out a PR for
this?
Eric