From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-26701-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9042 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2003 18:18:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9011 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2003 18:18:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2003 18:18:04 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7RII3l19489;
	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:18:03 -0400
Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7RII3s15804;
	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:18:03 -0400
Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222])
	by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7RIHxd13263;
	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:18:00 -0400
Received: (from dj@localhost)
	by greed.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h7RIHrR23997;
	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:17:53 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:18:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200308271817.h7RIHrR23997@greed.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: drow@mvista.com
CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com,
   gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20030827171507.GA14215@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel
	Jacobowitz on Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:15:07 -0400)
Subject: Re: [toplevel] GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
References:  <20030827171507.GA14215@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00489.txt.bz2


> DJ, I know you asked for this to be added to acx.m4 instead.  Unfortunately,
> it uses constructs that autoconf 2.13 can't parse, thus breaking
> regenerating the toplevel configure.  So I put it in a separate file after
> all.

No version conditionals?

> Tested, along with the patches to follow momentarily, on an extensive
> collection of targets (all --build=i686-linux).  Is this OK?

Ok.

/me wonders if function-per-file is a good precident to start.