From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19067 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2009 05:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 19048 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2009 05:31:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.gmx.net (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:30:54 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2009 05:30:51 -0000 Received: from xdsl-87-78-164-35.netcologne.de (EHLO localhost.localdomain) [87.78.164.35] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 29 Jul 2009 07:30:51 +0200 Received: from ralf by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MW1kY-0002Wu-Nu; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:30:50 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:15:00 -0000 From: Ralf Wildenhues To: tromey@redhat.com, Samuel Bronson Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Update rebuild rules in non-automake directories. Message-ID: <20090729053050.GC28894@gmx.de> Mail-Followup-To: Ralf Wildenhues , tromey@redhat.com, Samuel Bronson , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org References: <20090628183334.GA5401@gmx.de> <20090728181748.GA3134@gmx.de> <87skggqwep.wl%naesten@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87skggqwep.wl%naesten@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-15) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00708.txt.bz2 Hello Tom, Samuel, * Samuel Bronson wrote on Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:23:42AM CEST: > At Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:03:34 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > > It seems a little odd to have a rule to rebuild aclocal.m4 when there is > > no rule to rebuild configure. I indeed managed to overlook that. Thank you. > > Are you planning to add that? (I don't > > think this affects whether the patch is ok -- it is still an improvement > > over the present situation.) I will resubmit the gdb part of the patch with that rule. > You mean --enable-maintainer-mode doesn't already do that? Nope. This Makefile.in is not created by automake. About the changes that should go upstream, are you saying I should get them accepted upstream before they can go into gdb / src? Please note that several of the changes are specific to GCC/src; for example, m4_rename_force would require boehm-gc to move to Autoconf 2.64, or to employ the workaround we add to override.m4, somewhere in its code. Thanks, Ralf