From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6707 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2004 23:13:44 -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 6697 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 23:13:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 23:13:43 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i28NDfST002598 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:13:42 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i28NDdM01095; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:13:40 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (dhcp-172-16-25-160.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.25.160]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i28NDcR09744; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:13:38 -0800 Message-ID: <404CFE22.8010702@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; es-ES; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030922 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Generate makefile dependencies References: <404BBFD6.1060702@gnu.org> <6137-Mon08Mar2004080725+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <404C9E34.4010809@gnu.org> <20040308172924.GA20940@nevyn.them.org> <404CB609.4070609@gnu.org> <20040308181142.GA23441@nevyn.them.org> <404CBCE4.6070401@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <404CBCE4.6070401@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RedHat-Spam-Score: -4.9 X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00184.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.eSvH5pdFbM-v8wtW9zcJzR8I7vxrwpkNR93pfGZBIVg@z> Andrew Cagney wrote: >>>> So what about using the output of gcc -MM (or one of the other -M >>>> >>>>> >options?) to generate dependencies in the source directory, like BFD >>>>> >does? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> How is embedding this stuff in the source directory better? >> >> >> >> Because it doesn't need to rely on assumptions about the GDB coding >> style, and it doesn't require parsing all the source files when we >> configure? > > > Er, that's a postive - the dependency list is guarenteed to always match > the shipped source. Might be too big a step, depending on how expensive it is. I think this has been experimented with before, and was abandoned because there are a lot of header files on which -everything- depends. If the makefile dependencies are -too- correct, then touching any of those files causes everything to rebuild. Sometimes you want that -- but sometimes you don't. Can I suggest maybe having a separate make target for generating the dependencies? And maybe a second one for reverting them? Then you could choose when to do it. >> It's like regenerating configure; we try not to run >> autoconf during the build process, and not just because autoconf is so >> finicky. > > > Andrew > > >