This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: PR binutils/12283: bfd/doc doesn't support parallel build
- From: Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- Cc: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, binutils at sourceware dot org, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:06:51 -0800
- Subject: Re: PATCH: PR binutils/12283: bfd/doc doesn't support parallel build
- References: <AANLkTikAd7jWXN+2bi-OeR_-cQq7ivpSyVz+4165trVS@mail.gmail.com> <201101282332.p0SNWFT04949@lucas.cup.hp.com> <20110129094232.GD11288@gmx.de> <1296498781.12233.80.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <20110204063423.GC14132@gmx.de> <m2zkqbwuvk.fsf@igel.home>
- Reply-to: sje at cup dot hp dot com
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 18:51 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > bfd/doc/ChangeLog:
> > 2011-02-04 Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>
> >
> > PR binutils/12283
> > * Makefile.am (stamp-chew): New target.
> > Use throughout as dependency for targets that need chew,
> > instead of depdending on chew.c or on chew directly.
> > * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>
> I think that means that stamp-chew will need to be distributed, since
> the distributed *.texi files depend on it.
>
> Andreas.
I am still interested in this patch as a fix for hppa where the parallel
builds of chew do not result in identical binaries.
Would distributing stamp-chew be a problem? I am not familiar with the
distribution setup or builds. Is it just a question of adding
stamp-chew to MAINTAINERCLEANFILES?
Steve Ellcey
sje@cup.hp.com