From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id r110EB/ZcGD5PQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:45:51 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 355BD1EE14; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:45:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [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 898501E789 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00243848035; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:45:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E00243848035 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1618008349; bh=VUcC0PqaWFUbbS3yJIbY64xIkwusVO1Pk02zSJBgDPw=; 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=Ql1DW08YCIE1kBHnSSwkT633uBQAKd+whBVXmDaB+OacJWFky7qzTtSET08ATjYWt wrQKk7qTN95cMuE2Yv0a04bSiWXVVMp7kNuQ65CzqraQR4NhCz64hZwW3Q0/8Pe08C MACIa2yjH0rVMnUgbrqM2/VhzWlDATLYiTJQL/lM= Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730983848035 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:45:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 730983848035 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 B7DF8335DA9; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:45:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:45:46 -0400 To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Require GNU make Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210408203312.2938165-1-tom@tromey.com> <20210408203312.2938165-5-tom@tromey.com> <878s5rjs1g.fsf@tromey.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878s5rjs1g.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: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 09 Apr 2021 11:18, Tom Tromey wrote: > Mike> i've just been looking at moving these to automake and not worrying about > Mike> the quality of the existing Makefiles. although i'm not ready just yet to > Mike> move these ports over. > > You may have difficulty with this because automake doesn't handle the > build/host distinction very well. Like, there's no canned way AFAIK to > say that a given executable should be built for one or the other. > > I tend to think it would be simpler to just reimplement the bits you > need. Once you can rely on GNU make this kind of thing is pretty easy, > and less opaque than automake. > > However, don't let me stand in your way. And, I'm definitely in favor > of removing all the subdir configure scripts. you're not wrong, but i don't think it's any worse than plain make. i'm not plain make would be better either. we're using non-recursive make :). check out igen/local.mk and the testsuite/ ones too. -mike