This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Re: A clue for the libstdc++ problem.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 10:24:42PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2001, "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> > Your patch doesn't change the fact that presently only
> > libstdc++/src/Makefile knows the proper switches to use when building
> > libraries against the just-built libstdc++.
>
> Which is a good thing, IMO. We concentrate the information about how
> to find libstdc++ headers and libraries in libstdc++, and export it in
> a form any other tool can use; in particular, the top-level Makefile
> can use it. My plan is to do something similar for newlib, and,
> perhaps, libgloss, so that we can get rid of the many places in which
> these flags are hardcoded again and again.
... in which case, why are you objecting to moving more logic into the
subdirectories? I'm confused.
> > I don't think it will work with my shell. It looks like it uses the
> > same construct as your previous patch that didn't work. I could be
> > wrong.
...
> Or maybe you're referring to my Friday's patch
I was.
> that said:
>
> "CXX_FOR_TARGET='$(CXX_FOR_TARGET)'"
>
> The double quotes around the whole thing messed it up, because
> single-quotes aren't taken out.
Oh, now I get it. Yes, your patch did work in last night's overnight
build. I still would like a solution that involves none of this
quoting madness, but the tree builds again and libjava finally gets
the right flags, so I'll shut up now.
zw