From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id n/JsN4Z8HmI2BAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 15:05:26 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D21601F3CA; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 15:05:26 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1991EA69 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 15:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5442F385841C for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:05:25 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5442F385841C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1646165125; bh=7j9l07JUFloPZXEcSGvEGNhc9vSJMRtCUtfPP2oRS5w=; h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=I6928vO0q7rlp7+7NS0zh/QaGhfeHUHvx/tdz7/sX8WyU3g/EZ17/uGQrpdlFcgVj BTW/aeEmXPFatLZCy58f58HUEkoJGDgnhP2akAAItkVzU2BvwzMaXKtt2NmiIacMZv 0V5HQ8WixMsNodR17IFUna1IzvacUkfdoGOACC3s= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8DFB3858C78 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:05:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A8DFB3858C78 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-675-8ZGBBEsBME6mcXBxbh2tZQ-1; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 15:05:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 8ZGBBEsBME6mcXBxbh2tZQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33266FC82; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f35-zws-1 (unknown [10.2.17.153]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C308C30596; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 13:04:57 -0700 To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH] Some "distclean" fixes in gdb Message-ID: <20220301130457.13d8467f@f35-zws-1> In-Reply-To: <20220228003358.487744-1-tom@tromey.com> References: <20220228003358.487744-1-tom@tromey.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 17:33:58 -0700 Tom Tromey wrote: > PR build/12440 points out that "make distclean" is broken in gdb. > Most of the breakage comes from other projects in the tree, but we can > fix some of the issues, which is what this patch does. > > Note that the yacc output files, like c-exp.c, are left alone. In a > source distribution, these are included in the tarball, and if the > user builds in-tree, we would not want to remove them. > > While that seems a bit obscure, it seems to me that "distclean" is > only really useful for in-tree builds anyway -- out-of-tree I simply > delete the entire build directory and start over. > > Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12440 Wow, that's an old bug. Regardless, this seems reasonable to me. Kevin