[Bug gprof/2587] Failed to build gprof under gmake patched by Apple.

2019-11-14 Thread parakleta at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2587 --- Comment #11 from parakleta at gmail dot com --- (In reply to cvs-com...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4) > The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton : > > https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb

[Bug gprof/2587] Failed to build gprof under gmake patched by Apple.

2019-11-13 Thread parakleta at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2587 --- Comment #8 from parakleta at gmail dot com --- (In reply to parakleta from comment #7) > I've just realised that changing the order of rules may not work. Ignore this. There is an explicit dependency on the "BUILT_SOURCES" e

[Bug gprof/2587] Failed to build gprof under gmake patched by Apple.

2019-11-13 Thread parakleta at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2587 --- Comment #7 from parakleta at gmail dot com --- I've just realised that changing the order of rules may not work. We want to have '.m -> .c -> .o' as the sequence without triggering '.m -> .o', and by setting '.c' before '.m' we'

[Bug gprof/2587] Failed to build gprof under gmake patched by Apple.

2019-11-13 Thread parakleta at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2587 --- Comment #6 from parakleta at gmail dot com --- Sorry, by suffix rule order this means the order of suffixes in the `.SUFFIXES:` target which is autogenerated by the `SUFFIXES` variable in the "makefile.am" file. Your change wi

[Bug gprof/2587] Failed to build gprof under gmake patched by Apple.

2019-11-12 Thread parakleta at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2587 parakleta at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||parakleta at gmail dot com