This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Question about top-level configure code and in-tree builds
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Add a new shell variable in configure.ac extra_mpfr_configure_args. Set
> it to what you want to pass to the mpfr configure. Call
> AC_SUBST(extra_mpfr_configure_args). In Makefile.in add a line
> EXTRA_MPFR_CONFIGURE_ARGS = @extra_mpfr_configure_args@. In
> Makefile.def change the host_modules entry for module=mpfr to replace
> --with-gmp-build=$$r/$(HOST_SUBDIR)/gmp with
> $(EXTRA_MPFR_CONFIGURE_ARGS). Run autoconf and autogen.
>
> Easy as cake.
Ah, but cake is only easy when someone else bakes it. :-)
Anyway, thanks for the laser-like specific answer, that was extremely
helpful. I'm testing a patch, but I have two notes to run by you.
1. You mentioned adding EXTRA_MPFR_CONFIGURE_ARGS to Makefile.in. (I
think you mean Makefile.tpl, cause Makefile.in is generated?) Anyway, I
managed to avoid adding the intermediate make variable and just put
@extra_mpfr_configure_args@ in the module=mpfr entry and it worked. Is
there some stylistic or syntactic reason to use the intermediate variable?
It doesn't seem to be done 100% consistently.
2. In my previous message I said that mpfr worked by chance and the bug
was latent but the situation fragile. That is true for mpfr-2.3.2.
However the mpfr-2.4.1 tarball hard-errors on a double --with-gmp*,
apparently by design. E.g. this is from building an unpatched gcc with
in-tree mpfr-2.4.1 plus the configure flag --with-gmp=/opt/...
> configure: error: Do not use --with-gmp-build and other --with-gmp options simultaneously.
> See `config.log' for more details.
> make[1]: *** [configure-mpfr] Error 1
So IMHO when I finish testing we should install the patch on all active
branches to forestall any issues when people upgrade to the later mpfr
releases.
Regards,
--Kaveh