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

[Zack Weinberg]

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