Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]

[E. Weddington]

On 31 May 2003 at 18:04, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Sat, 31 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 30 May 2003, E. Weddington wrote:
> > > My bad. I checked last night and you're correct. I don't need bison /
> > > flex for GCC *releases*, but they are needed to build the weekly
> > > snapshots.
> > 
> > I consider this a bug, and will happily consider patches that address
> > this (without requiring a full build as part of snapshot generation).

Why would you consider this a bug?
 
> They will likely also require manual timestamp adjustments (not gcc_update
> --touch, that only deals with files in CVS) after applying patches between
> snapshots, otherwise files may inconsistently get regenerated / not get
> regenerated with different versions of Bison causing build failures.  
> (The problem can exist for releases, but it's much rarer for parsers to
> change between point releases.)  So you'd need - at least - to arrange for
> diffs to undergo a topological sort (using an extended list of
> dependencies that covers files generated for snapshots as well as those in
> CVS).

Why not just explicitly state that these tools (bison/flex) are required if 
building weekly snapshots?


If you still consider this a bug, do you want me to go ahead fill out a PR for 
this?

Eric