Re: Require GNU make to build binutils-gdb

Mike Frysinger
2016-11-17T20:06:50Z

[-- 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 --]