From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22745 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2003 15:26:42 -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 22662 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2003 15:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO disaster.jaj.com) (66.93.21.106) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2003 15:26:41 -0000 Received: (from phil@localhost) by disaster.jaj.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) id h0RFQcV31879; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:26:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:26:00 -0000 From: Phil Edwards To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Nathanael Nerode , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: (toplevel patch) Use canonical names for target_subdir, build_subdir. Message-ID: <20030127152638.GA31758@disaster.jaj.com> References: <20030124034053.GA22615@doctormoo> <20030126122246.GA7985@disaster.jaj.com> <20030127145629.GA31107@disaster.jaj.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030127145629.GA31107@disaster.jaj.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00731.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:29AM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:44:56AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2003, Phil Edwards wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:50:21PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > >> On Jan 24, 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > >> > > >> > Use the canonical build and target names for build_subdir and target_subdir. > > >> > > >> Not ok. athlon-linux-gnu is canonicalized to i686-linux-gnu, so we > > >> can't use the same directories for both of them. (Consider building a > > >> compiler on athlon that must run on i686, or on the other way round). > > > > > So, is this going to be reverted or not? It's destroying the testsuite > > > results. > > > > Please go ahead and revert it. It must have gone in by mistake, since > > it was explicitly rejected. > > Done as below. Looking over the cvs log, I think Nathanael might have been > committed this by accident as part of reverting his rda stuff. That would > explain why it was committed at the top level and not in the gcc directory. Criminy. Now somebody else is complaining about unexpanded macros from config/acx.m4, even though sinclude(config/acx.m4) is at the top of configure.in. I'm not seeing this problem, so I can't help. So it looks like my reversion will have to be reverted, leaving us with the original problem again. Somebody else wanna give it a shot? (And explain to me why I'm not seeing it?) Phil -- I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met. - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002