From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23550 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2009 14:49:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 23512 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Sep 2009 14:49:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:49:03 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.internal [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFC678DF8; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:49:00 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (user-0c6sbc4.cable.mindspring.com [24.110.45.132]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9D2B72BA0; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4ABCD858.3030400@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:49:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Wildenhues , Nick Clifton , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA/RFC: Pass --cache-file=/dev/null on to subconfigures References: <20090925110629.GA25946__23064.0259491794$1253876825$gmane$org@ins.uni-bonn.de> In-Reply-To: <20090925110629.GA25946__23064.0259491794$1253876825$gmane$org@ins.uni-bonn.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00797.txt.bz2 Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Yes. Unless you have actively changed any precious variables, they > should not be inconsistent and the cache should not be invalidated. > Can you please provide me with a recipe to reproduce this (this might > be difficult to do) or otherwise circumstances when it happens, and post > the full error message? I've seen it happen -- building gdb/insight which is part of the src tree if not gcc specfically -- when a precious variable contained a leading space. I think it was because the top-level configure automatically augmented it as follows, when the var was originally empty: X="$X --some-new-flag" For some reason, the sub-configure had the variable without the leading space, so it complained of a mismatch. Sorry I don't have more details, but I don't have the build log anymore so I'm going by memory here. (I wasn't overriding the --cache-val in any way). -- Chuck