This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] - Fix bogus dependency in Makefile.in
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Fix bogus dependency in Makefile.in
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:49:13 -0600
- cc: Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>, jason at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <20000710180836.A11459@wolery.cumb.org>you write:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 02:27:07AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > One thing which is glaringly obvious to me is this.
> >
> > Assuming your reasoning is correct (but read the end of this message),
> > there should be a comment in the Makefile that explains what is going on.
>
> > This is sneaky, and easy to lose track of.
>
> That's fair - although, IMO, there's plenty of places in the makefiles
> that are far more confusing, and those aren't commented. I could
> comment 'em, but I could be wrong...
But just because someone was lax and let a non-obvious change into the
tree without documentation, does that mean we should repeat the process
elsewhere?
If you've got an idea what the other non-obvious code does, feel free to
document it as best as you can.
jeff