From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27854 invoked by alias); 28 Dec 2002 17:58:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27842 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2002 17:58:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 28 Dec 2002 17:58:17 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18SN6C-0004Jl-00; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:58:20 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18SLF1-0004UL-00; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:59:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: (toplevel) Fix dramatic breakage for ordinary crosses (related to program_transform_name) Message-ID: <20021228175919.GA17177@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <20021228093127.GA455@doctormoo> <20021228163419.GA10686@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00721.txt.bz2 On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 03:51:19PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 28, 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > I notice that you moved the .NOTPARALLEL down to the configure section. > > Just because otherwise `make NOTPARALLEL=something' would cause make > to try to build something, not all. > > > While it is there what do you think of removing the serialization > > dependencies? > > Some day, some day... > > Really, the only way to avoid them is to introduce some form of > locking, an idea that DJ vehemently rejects. > > Unless... We could perhaps have NOTPARALLEL set by default, which > would take care of avoiding configurations in parallel even without > serialized dependencies, but a configure option to disable NOTPARALLEL > and introduce locking. DJ, how does this sound for you? It's a question of whether you can do the locking without making people throw up, I think. > > Also, top level configure no longer accepts --norecursion. > > The autoconf spelling is --no-recursion. Anyway, it no longer > recurses... Unfortunately, with autoconf, it gets *really* tricky to > introduce options that are not in the autoconf option space (--with or > --enable), so offering --norecursion for backward-compatibility gets > tricky. > > > This means that one has to configure from scratch in any existing > > working directory. > > ./config.status --recheck? > > > Oh, perhaps you mean with a config.status that pre-dates > autoconfiscation? Yeah, this would be tricky... Editing > config.status is your best bet. Failing that, well... Running the > top-level configure again is no such big deal, is it? :-) You mean, like any config.status from any day before today? :) Yes, that's what I meant. At least we get an error message. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer