Re: less than ideal Makefile

[Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>]

> It's not really "broken", it just lacks any dependancy information.  Why?
> you ask.  Well, a /partial/ dependancy list is below.  It's over a thousand
> lines long and measures 51K.  That's why.  :-)

OK, I really just wanted to confirm that our convention was suppose to
be different than the gcc tree.  I don't know that we need to cram all
that in the Makefiles, but maybe we could express a conservative
dependency structure (i.e. one which would force too much rebuilding)
so at least we err or rebuilding too much than not enough.  The only
reason I knew something was amiss is because gmake rebuilt nothing
after changing a tcc file.  A Makefile that rebuilds too much is
sometimes annoying but one that misses something can easily trick you.

I must confess that I have always just rm'd the libstdc++-v3 object
tree and rebuilt that alone from scratch (I probably trained myself to
do this after being burned before), if I didn't want to pay the full
bootstrap cycle and I wanted to test changes in the library tree.  But
I was doing enough build cycles while looking at the fseek() problem
that I investigated a faster way.

Regards,
Loren