From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11253 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2008 19:31:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 11245 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2008 19:31:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:30:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5SJUlRQ000494; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:30:47 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m5SJUlV7025354; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:30:47 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-54.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.54]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m5SJUkBE021918; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:30:47 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 54B5D88811E; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:30:46 -0600 (MDT) To: Mark Kettenis Cc: drow@false.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Automatic dependency tracking References: <200806152203.14626.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080616012617.GA8944@caradoc.them.org> <20080625182858.GA25575@caradoc.them.org> <200806281920.m5SJKAQI008684@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200806281920.m5SJKAQI008684@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Sat\, 28 Jun 2008 21\:20\:10 +0200 \(CEST\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00306.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis writes: Mark> I'd like to avoid this if we can. On OpenBSD we include GDB in the Mark> base system, but we don't have GNU make. This'll mean I'll have to do Mark> extensive makefile hackary whenever I import a new version of GDB in Mark> the OpenBSD tree. I'd rather spend that time on hacking more useful Mark> stuff. How does OpenBSD handle this for GCC? Or does the OpenBSD gcc maintainer also rewrite the Makefiles? Ugh. FWIW, rewriting the patch I sent to avoid GNU make is likely to be pretty fiddly & painful. Tom