From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 0JSnL91gJ2DPYQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 00:17:17 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B2ABC1EF68; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 00:17:17 -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 600721E789 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 00:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8E73874C04; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 05:17:16 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7D8E73874C04 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1613193436; bh=PLYPDoh8ZT5VCTlaBml9H8Wo0USCDQUnGWtnNKum9Sg=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=fgifJXflrI2yS8pwfVmOc4RclQ+0w1rVSq+4edt+Li4amJ9Qgy1v8CZWMqaWiLnaN tRWVsRGqXoHrOPADkY5C986XXtUWaVEEIVvlpOB0GkWfM0915zd2qouDv5WWUUV5TL nZf0+skHXSvAXmPvMTAzhhyutapJFvFUZazJoks4= Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEA0386F803; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 05:17:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1EEA0386F803 Received: from vapier (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC307341101; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 05:17:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 00:17:10 -0500 To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH] config/debuginfod: do not include pkg.m4 directly Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210207003141.14617-1-vapier@gentoo.org> <87sg66fiwu.fsf@tromey.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sg66fiwu.fsf@tromey.com> 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: Mike Frysinger via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Mike Frysinger Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 08 Feb 2021 12:39, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger via Binutils writes: > > Mike> Any code using AC_DEBUGINFOD from this dir is using -I../config when > Mike> running aclocal, so an explicit include on pkg.m4 is unnecessary: > Mike> aclocal will find the pkg.m4 in this dir just as easily. This is > Mike> seen in the only two dirs that use AC_DEBUGINFOD (binutils & gdb) > Mike> as their aclocal.m4 already has m4_include on config m4 files. > > Mike> The include as written only works if aclocal is run on a dir that is > > Mike> config/ > Mike> * debuginfod.m4: Delete m4_include(../config/pkg.m4). > > Mike> binutils/ > Mike> * aclocal.m4: Regenerate. > > Mike> gdb/ > Mike> * aclocal.m4: Regenerate. > > This is fine by me, but please wait a little while in case someone on > the binutils list has a differing opinion. thanks, i've pushed now -mike