From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15858 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 22:27:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15839 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 22:27:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 22:27:24 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55703D22; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D2CB4C8.2090005@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: law@redhat.com Cc: tim@hollebeek.com, Nathanael Nerode , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Top Level Autoconfiscation Status References: <200207011724.g61HO5P22335@porcupine.slc.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00107.txt.bz2 See: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-05/msg00330.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-05/msg00702.html > In message <3D20818E.1040706@ges.redhat.com>, Andrew Cagney writes: > >> In message <20020630221237.A2110@hollebeek.com>, Tim Hollebeek writes: > >> >> * To avoid a lot of subtle problems, configure uses absolute pathnames > >> >> for most directories which it puts into the Makefile. This means you > >> >> can no longer 'configure', relocate srcdir or builddir, and then 'make' > >. > >> >> I doubt that this is important. > >> I do this regularly -- especially on machines where configure is slow > >> (hpux, aix, solaris). > > > >I believe that both BFD and READLINE (in src) are currently broken in > >this regard (DJE reported problems). There was a somewhat underwelming > >response (see binutils) when it was suggested that developers should be > >responsible for ensuring that this obscure functionality continues to work. > Hmmm, I'm 99.9% sure I recently did this with a tree which included > BFD & READLINE and I didn't see any problems. That doesn't mean such > problems don't exist -- it merely means I didn't run into them. > > jeff > > Andrew