Re: Require GNU make to build binutils-gdb

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1820 bytes --]

On 17 Nov 2016 14:11, Simon Marchi wrote:
> In gdb/, we are now making use of GNU make-specific features (in 
> particular, pattern rules), so we now require building with GNU make.  
> We based our decision on the fact that, for every platform on which we 
> are aware people build GDB on, GNU make is easily available. In fact, 
> according to the echoes we got, people already use gmake to build gdb 
> everywhere.
> 
> Pedro determined that GNU make 3.81 was practically universally 
> available:
> 
>    https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-11/msg00475.html
> 
> Additionally, CentOS 6 (so probably RHEL6 as well) and Ubuntu 14.04 have 
> 3.81 in their repos.  Just those two probably represent a significant 
> user base.  So, unless we have a really good reason to require something 
> more recent, I think it makes sense to require GNU make >= 3.81.
> 
> For simplicity and consistency, we were wondering if we should adopt the 
> same policy for the whole binutils-gdb tree.  While not necessary, it 
> opens up the door to using GNU make-specific constructs in other 
> Makefiles in the tree, possibly improving readability and 
> maintainability.  This change in GDB gives a good idea:
> 
>    http://tinyurl.com/hb8ozrz
> 
> There was a discussion in 2014 that spun off another thread.  Nobody 
> seemed against the idea, but there was no follow-up AFAICT:
> 
>    https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-05/msg00263.html
> 
> In the eventuality this proposition is accepted, should we have a check 
> in the top-level Makefile that warns the user early if their version of 
> make is not supported?

seems like it should be adopted by gcc first ?

for sim/, i have no problem having it follow gdb, although i was planning
on converting it to automake ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]