From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12721 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2010 10:07:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 12710 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Oct 2010 10:07:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:07:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 17798 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2010 10:07:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 21 Oct 2010 10:07:45 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fix Makefile.in in data-directory Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Doug Evans , Jie Zhang References: <4CBEDBF5.9060504@codesourcery.com> <4CBFA227.8050501@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201010211107.42726.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-10/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 On Thursday 21 October 2010 03:29:58, Doug Evans wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: > > I don't think it's really necessary to fix that. binutils and gcc also don't > > allow "make -j4 install" to directly after "configure". "make -j4 all > > install" also fails for binutils and gcc. I think it's already an convention > > that those software are built with > > > > ./configure > > make > > make install > > > > Do we really need the effort to fix GDB? > GDB's makefile's in question reads: ># Traditionally "install" depends on "all". But it may be useful ># not to; for example, if the user has made some trivial change to a ># source file and doesn't care about rebuilding or just wants to save the ># time it takes for make to check that all is up to date. ># install-only is intended to address that need. >install: all install-only (enphasis on the comment.) Maybe it's the 'Traditionally "install" depends on "all".' part that's not so traditional afterall? I really don't know. (most users are better taught separate "make" and "make install" steps, because it's most often necessary to need extra previleges and "sudo make install" to install to /usr/local, but not to "make".) > fwiw, I think the answer is yes. > > Note that we don't need to consider ./configure ; make -j4 install. > > The issue arises with a simple "$EDITOR foo.c ; make -j4 install". Yeah, that's the scenerio where I got surprised that gdb started both building and installing _simultaneously_, which has all the looks of a dependency bug. If install always behaved like install-only, I wouldn't have been surprised! FWIW, if "install" depending on "all" in the first place is not so common (even "wrong?") afterall in GNU projects (it seems automake does not?), I'd be personally okay to stop doing it in gdb as well, and get rid of install-only, keeping only "install". I never used install-only myself, and it does seem weird to behave differently from bfd (which is automake based). (To be clear, your new patch is fine with me as well, thanks! Please wait for Doug's review though.) -- Pedro Alves