On May 24, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> * Makefile.in: move dependency on install-unwind_h from
>> "install-leaf" to "install".
>
> I don't see the final patch, but it sounds promising.
:) Testing was good on my side and Paolo approved
so this was checked in, rev 1878
Olivier Hainque writes:
> OK to apply ?
>
> libgcc/
> * Makefile.in: move dependency on install-unwind_h from
> "install-leaf" to "install".
I don't see the final patch, but it sounds promising. Thanks for
looking at it so quickly.
Ian
On May 24, 2012, at 16:32 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> libgcc/
>> * Makefile.in (clean): Remove libgcc_tm.stamp as well.
>> Use a separate command for stamp removals.
>
> Ok, thanks.
Committed. The other one also, on the 4.7 branch as well.
Thanks for for prompt feedback. And tha
Il 24/05/2012 16:31, Olivier Hainque ha scritto:
>
> On May 24, 2012, at 16:01 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> (*) For this sequence to work, I had to change libgcc_tm.h into
>>> libgcc_tm.stamp
>>> in the list of files removed by "clean:" in libgcc/Makefile.in.
>
>> I think you need to remove bo
On May 24, 2012, at 16:01 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> (*) For this sequence to work, I had to change libgcc_tm.h into
>> libgcc_tm.stamp
>> in the list of files removed by "clean:" in libgcc/Makefile.in.
> I think you need to remove both files?
Agreed. The .h is generated and needs to be rem
Il 24/05/2012 15:32, Olivier Hainque ha scritto:
> Hello Ian,
>
> On May 24, 2012, at 14:22 , Olivier Hainque wrote:
>> libgcc/
>> * Makefile.in: move dependency on install-unwind_h from
>> "install-leaf" to "install".
>
> Testing went fine for me. Here is what I checked:
>
> Fo
Hello Ian,
On May 24, 2012, at 14:22 , Olivier Hainque wrote:
> libgcc/
> * Makefile.in: move dependency on install-unwind_h from
> "install-leaf" to "install".
Testing went fine for me. Here is what I checked:
For a pristine tree:
configure --enable-languages=c --disable
On May 24, 2012, at 06:18 , Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>(install-unwind_h): Reinstate, copy to user install destination
>>for include files, not to the internal gcc object directory one.
>>(install-leaf): Depend on it.
>
> The effect is that every time libgcc is built, unwin
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> 2012-05-16 Olivier Hainque
>
> libgcc/
> * Makefile.in (install-unwind_h): Rename into ...
> (install-unwind_h-forbuild): New target.
> (all): Use it instead of the former install-unwind_h.
> (install
On May 18, 2012, at 17:59 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> * Makefile.in (FLAGS_TO_PASS): Pass $(libexecsubdir) instead of
>> $(libsubdir) as libexecsubdir.
>
> Yes, ok. FLAGS_TO_PASS is only used by Ada until now.
Installed, thanks :)
Il 18/05/2012 17:34, Olivier Hainque ha scritto:
> Hello Paolo,
>
> On May 16, 2012, at 15:17 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> + install-no-fixedincludes:
> ...
>>> + $(MAKE) $(FLAGS_TO_PASS) install
>
> This uncovered a latent problem that my light re-testing after
> the apparently innocent switch t
Hello Paolo,
On May 16, 2012, at 15:17 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> + install-no-fixedincludes:
...
>> +$(MAKE) $(FLAGS_TO_PASS) install
This uncovered a latent problem that my light re-testing after
the apparently innocent switch to a sequence of commands, per
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/
On May 16, 2012, at 17:03 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Ok, thanks!
Great :-)
> All these are regressions, right?
Right.
> Please commit them to 4.7 branch too.
Will do. Thanks for your prompt and constructive feedback,
With Kind Regards,
Olivier
Il 16/05/2012 16:46, Olivier Hainque ha scritto:
>
> On May 16, 2012, at 15:17 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Please indent the comments with a tab and remove the empty lines.
>
> Sure.
>
>> Ok with that change.
>
> Installed, thanks :)
>
> If I may, we actually hit another install-no-fixedinclu
On May 16, 2012, at 15:17 , Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Please indent the comments with a tab and remove the empty lines.
Sure.
> Ok with that change.
Installed, thanks :)
If I may, we actually hit another install-no-fixedincludes issue
in more recent versions of gcc, after
http://gcc.gnu.or
Il 16/05/2012 14:54, Olivier Hainque ha scritto:
> +
> + install-no-fixedincludes:
> + # Stash the current set of headers away, save stamps we're going to alter
> + # explicitly, and arrange for fixincludes not to run next time we trigger
> + # a headers rebuild.
> +
> + -rm -rf tmp-include
>
Hello Paolo,
This is a followup on the exchange we just had about
this patch, as part of another thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01093.html
Attached is a second version, adjusted to account for the
suggestions you made.
Looks good ?
Thanks for your feedback,
With Kind R
Hello,
Ping for http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00274.html
Thanks in advance,
Olivier
On Apr 5, 2012, at 14:54 , Olivier Hainque wrote:
...
> install-no-fixedincludes remains a useful Makefile target
> and it misbehaves in two ways:
>
> 1) past the second invocation, it rebuilds
On Apr 5, 2012, at 15:07 , Richard Guenther wrote:
> Nice.
Thanks :)
> I suppose this would enable a --disable-fixinclude? fixinclude can
> take quite some time when a lot of headers are installed and if we are
> not going to install them, why produce them ...
That was another suggestion in
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is following up on a proposal first discussed at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00666.html
>
> The initial issue to resolve is still present today:
> install-no-fixedincludes remains a useful Makefile target
>
Hello,
This is following up on a proposal first discussed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00666.html
The initial issue to resolve is still present today:
install-no-fixedincludes remains a useful Makefile target
and it misbehaves in two ways:
1) past the second invocation, it
21 matches
Mail list logo
