This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR4114, 4113, 4082, 4078, (part of) 4096 plus other reports in gcc-bugs
- To: rittle at labs dot mot dot com
- Subject: Re: PR4114, 4113, 4082, 4078, (part of) 4096 plus other reports in gcc-bugs
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:34:40 -0400
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, ungaro at pegasus dot fmrp dot usp dot br, partain at dcs dot gla dot ac dot uk, ajhood at fl dot net dot au, Hermann dot Rochholz at faidor dot de, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, karl at gnu dot org, bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org, rkl at connect dot org dot uk, apiszcz at mitre dot org
- References: <200108242148.f7OLmBo78792@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 04:48:11PM -0500, Loren James Rittle wrote:
> I can almost
> guarantee that I never configure in $(srcdir) since you get all sorts
> of trash in your CVS working tree... I surely didn't test the jumbo
> patch which created libstdc++-v3/include/Makefile.am with that style
> of in-source tree configuration. Did anyone?
I sure didn't, and for precisely that reason: way too much crap gets
created in the working tree.
Frankly, personally, going against what I'm sure is FSF holy writ: I have
almost zero motivation for making in-tree builds work. It's increased
work, it's fragile, it's a pain to clean up for a new build, and I can't
think of (nor recall from past discussion) any particular benefits that
in-tree builds give the user over separate-tree builds.
Yeah, random GNU packages downloaded from the net are normally built with
"./configure && make all install" but I don't feel that GCC qualifies as
any random package.
Okay, that was my rant. :-)
> The question is: How do we clean this mess up? At this point, I don't
> even see what is wrong with include/Makefile.am .
Me neither. I could swear that everything was being done with absolute
paths (except for the one file which might contain colons).
Phil
--
Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
- anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC