From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14441 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2010 02:15:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 14422 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Oct 2010 02:15:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 02:15:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 25145 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2010 02:14:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.106?) (jie@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 21 Oct 2010 02:14:58 -0000 Message-ID: <4CBFA227.8050501@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 02:15:00 -0000 From: Jie Zhang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100918 Icedove/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Doug Evans Subject: Re: Fix Makefile.in in data-directory References: <4CBEDBF5.9060504@codesourcery.com> <201010210114.24465.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4CBF86A6.8020102@codesourcery.com> <201010210128.53843.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201010210128.53843.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-10/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 On 10/21/2010 08:28 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Thursday 21 October 2010 01:17:42, Jie Zhang wrote: >> On 10/21/2010 08:14 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On Thursday 21 October 2010 01:10:14, Jie Zhang wrote: >>>> I don't think this is an issue. I think in the last more than 10 years, >>>> no one did "make -j all install" since the same instance in >>>> gdb/Makefile.in has been there since it was created. Actually if you do >>>> that in current gdb, it will not install gdb at all. I usually issue >>>> >>>> make -j4 all >>>> make install >>> >>> FWIW, I got surprised before learning that "make -j4 install" misbehaves >>> like that. I'd rather have it fixed. It just sounds like a buglet people >>> got used to dealing with. >>> >> I didn't mean that "make -j4 install" misbehaves for gdb. It's "make -j4 >> all install" that misbehaves. > > Well, okay, it's the same difference. > > It's caused by the same problem. If you stop making "install" depend > on "all install-only", but make it depend on "all" only, as Doug was > saying, then "make -j4 all install" stops misbehaving, because "install" > depends on "all", so "install" only proceeds after "all" is done. > I don't think it's really necessary to fix that. binutils and gcc also don't allow "make -j4 install" to directly after "configure". "make -j4 all install" also fails for binutils and gcc. I think it's already an convention that those software are built with ./configure make make install Do we really need the effort to fix GDB? -- Jie Zhang CodeSourcery