From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id iRjxLTtp9F8fPwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 08:27:23 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id AE7511F0AA; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 08:27:23 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (unknown [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 363FA1E965 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 08:27:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B5F393BC17; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 13:27:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 56B5F393BC17 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1609853242; bh=1bVWLUME5nC6SKRZSL5aJacE3773GauEfbLYR0jaH8w=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=wzF49YXJo77qusuW3Hb0IutBvfiXi+61RU5uEh4WSNQzrVyj9EujLGL6lxDXCWd5F qscy5ev8xjpP9tmP5gMBzEdyt5HZoV1tDgm7229nOKKVry3heRQzoZIMx5bDhCQ0KH 4ZPlseyGRSwS0PPji/z54zNC8TN2sUrLPYmcbyD8= Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9E6A393BC12 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 13:27:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E9E6A393BC12 Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id u21so20725447qtw.11 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 05:27:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1bVWLUME5nC6SKRZSL5aJacE3773GauEfbLYR0jaH8w=; b=q25oKwQmGasPFj7iHBrCqAPuwvx/1H/3Cbis20e9BygtQu9Rm1A5dQYcFrJx0lsaAi iwlujk0vB9DNV3h2vUP/sDNWUJRUshS6pI79wIPPAzVCPNoQvIA0Vxu03pM49ct9hqh7 HAPqGQw7fuSR/vA0eqzbutzc/FsfBYH8Y9gnmCjDxk8KOQNbSnfAacNWo8kZyxQNfVnc W+S4FN9a1AFaabP/254O3KVwMDUQEywtNGSVc8nR6b0d2p4nNW/buJyk6JHrXdwMc3UK FZsswt9LLTtnMXIMqNnlxdeTVjP42IkE+wZLNyym1JWG/JtyttKaRX5i0XoY234w62pE +Q9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jXHJ1JFkNanVfhcFxLz7duwmXznTQFsripSwcdsVAVe1r9ms5 aWND5O4oMrQo4GspX6KWwD1AwMZQ8NAnWchVZUiwKA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwIMxp+u/wk3cpjRIXhXt1hq4+hoMCWrkjXQaBGh1KTJQmvt/U21NEcRSx4V+eTyTuvieTeA8glPdvzOWMVx4g= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4910:: with SMTP id e16mr76668692qtq.244.1609853239324; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 05:27:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201219181036.178248-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <20201219181036.178248-6-hjl.tools@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:26:41 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: V3 [PATCH 5/5] gnulib: Support variables from the top level Makefile To: "H.J. Lu" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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: Christian Biesinger via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Christian Biesinger Cc: Matthias Klose , GDB , GCC Patches , Binutils , Joseph Myers Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 1:07 AM H.J. Lu via Gdb-patches wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 3:50 PM Joseph Myers wrote: > > > > On Sat, 19 Dec 2020, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > > Work around what appears to be a GNU make bug handling MAKEFLAGS > > > values defined in terms of make variables, as is the case for CC and > > > friends when we are called from the top level Makefile. > > > > This description, and the comment in Makefile.am repeating it, is rather > > unhelpful as it provides no way for a reader to know what the supposed bug > > is. Reviewers need to be able to work out whether the proposed workaround > > is correct or the right approach for working around the bug. Maintainers > > in future need to be able to tell what the bug is. So the comment needs > > to explain what the bug is and give a reference to a report for the bug in > > the GNU make bug tracker, so that subsequent maintainers can look at that > > bug to tell if the workaround is still needed at all. > > > > I just copied the same workaround from other directories in GCC. But could you explain under which circumstances the bug happens? Christian