From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14001 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2011 15:26:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 13978 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2011 15:26:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:26:31 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RE0hQ-0007fw-VE from pedro_alves@mentor.com ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:26:29 -0700 Received: from scottsdale.localnet ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:26:26 +0100 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] New test+use texinfo @click - @HAVE_MAKEINFO_CLICK@ [Re: doc build failure (Re: [patch 04/12] entryval#3: Virtual tail call frames)] Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:26:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich Weigand , eliz@gnu.org References: <20111011233417.GA17487@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20111011233417.GA17487@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110121626.24835.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: 2011-10/txt/msg00355.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 12 October 2011 00:34:17, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:56:34 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > > On Monday 10 October 2011 19:47:26, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > + if makeinfo conftest.texinfo >&5 2>&5; then > > > > Shouldn't this be $(MAKEINFO) instead (like in Makefile.in)? > > Though I'm not sure how to do that here. Maybe > > AC_CHECK_PROGS(MAKEINFO, makeinfo) ? > > Yes, it should, although it is more complicated. > > There is IMO a bug in toplevel configure it does not pass down MAKEINFOFLAGS > and includes "--split-size=5000000" directly into MAKEINFO. Without the > special handling of --split-size=5000000 it would be used during first > compilation but no longer used after automatic re-run of configure in gdb/ > (although only if one deletes gdb/config.cache). I see. We should get that fixed someday. > Therefore I added --split-size=5000000 there explicitly, which means it is > duplicated during the dirst compilation but it does not matter. > > --split-size=5000000 was not used in gdb/doc/ before at all but I think it was > a bug, even gcc uses --no-split. No opinion on that. > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:18:54 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > You should not modify MAKEINFO. If you say > > "make info MAKEINFO=/usr/local/bin/makeinfo" you lose the flags. > > True, toplevel configure is already violating that but fixed it in gdb/ . Thanks. Looks good to me. -- Pedro Alves