From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13443 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2011 03:25:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 13433 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Mar 2011 03:25:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 03:25:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECE92BB204; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 22:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id m94ek4etxnkb; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 22:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD322BB203; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 22:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 39FD91459AD; Sat, 5 Mar 2011 07:24:45 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 03:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Remove make gnu-ism in gdbserver Message-ID: <20110305032445.GI30306@adacore.com> References: <4D6C9A29.3000701@codesourcery.com> <201103041702.p24H25o0014129@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103041702.p24H25o0014129@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2 > > $(LIBCOMMON): $(LIBCOMMON_DIR)/Makefile > > - @$(MAKE) $(FLAGS_TO_PASS) DO=all --directory=common > > + @$(MAKE) $(FLAGS_TO_PASS) DO=all DODIRS=common subdir_do > > This breaks building gdbserver completely for me: Probably because Yao forgot that this patch was dependent on one of his previous patches. I was a little surprised when Yao said he checked it in, but I thought that maybe the other part got approved beforehand. Let's see if we can approve the part of the other patch that - otherwise, we'll make a temporary revert. Sorry about that. -- Joel