From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11490 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2004 17:58:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11474 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 17:58:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 17:58:50 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF62D2B92; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:58:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <404CB459.6050803@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Generate makefile dependencies References: <404BBFD6.1060702@gnu.org> <6137-Mon08Mar2004080725+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <404C9E34.4010809@gnu.org> <3405-Mon08Mar2004192321+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> In-Reply-To: <3405-Mon08Mar2004192321+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00164.txt >>Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:24:20 -0500 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >> >>>> > >>>> > Won't it be better to use "gcc -MM" when we compile with GCC? >> >>> >>> It would, except we can't assume GCC :-(. > > > We can't assume, but we can test (and I think we do test already, > right?). It isn't the ability to test for GCC's presence thats the problem. It's that by conditionally using GCC we end up with two code paths - one of which will rarely be used and rarely be tested. Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11490 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2004 17:58:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11474 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 17:58:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 17:58:50 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF62D2B92; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:58:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <404CB459.6050803@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Generate makefile dependencies References: <404BBFD6.1060702@gnu.org> <6137-Mon08Mar2004080725+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <404C9E34.4010809@gnu.org> <3405-Mon08Mar2004192321+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> In-Reply-To: <3405-Mon08Mar2004192321+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.3ANe_F5t5RmLzev6Nuyle1pew1szT-t5zn_-nu1TCA0@z> >>Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:24:20 -0500 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >> >>>> > >>>> > Won't it be better to use "gcc -MM" when we compile with GCC? >> >>> >>> It would, except we can't assume GCC :-(. > > > We can't assume, but we can test (and I think we do test already, > right?). It isn't the ability to test for GCC's presence thats the problem. It's that by conditionally using GCC we end up with two code paths - one of which will rarely be used and rarely be tested. Andrew