From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21079 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2008 18:29:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 21040 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2008 18:29:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:29:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2FD9835A; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:28:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B599810F; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:28:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KBZjn-0006kK-0J; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:28:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Cc: Tom Tromey Subject: Automatic dependency tracking Message-ID: <20080625182858.GA25575@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey References: <200806152203.14626.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080616012617.GA8944@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00255.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:00:22AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > I can send out my unfinished Makefile.am for gdb if you really want > it. That would solve this problem. > > "Unfinished" means it is like 30% done :-( > > If we didn't mind requiring GNU make we could probably implement > dependency tracking more simply. I suspect that is still a no-go ... Let's talk about this... I'd be very happy if we could remove the manual dependency lists. Option one: we could switch to automake. That would bring dependency tracking for free. GDB already has a dependency on automake, so aside from the work of the transition I don't think this would be a big deal. I'm not too fond of automake, but it does work. Option two: we could require GNU make. GCC has done this for years, but binutils does not; it may be premature. Option three: we could manually list dependencies on generated files, and support dependencies on source files only on systems with GNU make. This effectively means GNU make is a requirement if you are hacking on GDB, but not to build GDB from a clean tree. Option four: We could borrow logic from BFD to generate dependency lists. What's going on with this code anyway? Why does BFD need dependency lists in Makefile.am if it uses automake? Have I missed anything? Any comments on these options? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery