[PATCH] Re: A clue for the libstdc++ problem.

Zack Weinberg zackw@Stanford.EDU
Sun Apr 1 17:12:00 GMT 2001


On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 08:57:47PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr  1, 2001, "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> 
> > How's this sound: at the beginning of the target configure sequence,
> > create libstdc++.FLAGS in the top level of the target build directory
> > ($objdir/$target).  It just has '-nostdinc++' in it to start.
> > libstdc++/src/Makefile overwrites that file with the correct switch
> > set.  We augment $(CXX_FOR_TARGET) with `cat libstdc++.FLAGS`
> > *directly* in the rule which invokes target library configure.
> > CXX_FOR_TARGET then has no backquotes in it, and is not damaged by
> > being evaluated in the FLAGS_TO_PASS sequence.
> 
> I'm not sure it's better than the patch that I proposed (which worked
> for me, BTW).  I'd rather have configure flags centralized in
> configure files, not hidden in Makefile templates.

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++.

...
> I'm tempted to install the patch I have now, just to get things back
> into a working shape, and then proceed with the discussion about the
> best way to address it, if anybody still has the energy for it.  If
> nobody screams in horror ;-) about the patch that introduces
> CXX_FOR_TARGET_FOR_RECURSIVE_MAKE, I'll check it in in half an hour or
> so.

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.

zw



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list