This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
On 03/28/2012 02:29 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> - texinfo.tex is not required if a Texinfo source file is specified. The
>> assumption is that the file will be supplied, but in a place that
>> Automake cannot find. This assumption is an artifact of how Cygnus
>> packages are typically bundled.
> texinfo.tex is in a known location, but only a single copy for GDB and
> binutils and a single copy for GCC rather than in each directory needing
Which makes perfect sense. So Automake should support this use case.
> Is the approach used (for example) in libquadmath/Makefile.am
> TEXINFO_TEX = ../gcc/doc/include/texinfo.tex
> considered a suitable approach for this case?
This would seem the most sensible approach, yes. Want to give it a try to
see whether it works in the GCC/GDB/Binutils tree? (What should be verified
particularly carefully is that the idiom works also in VPATH builds).
>> - Certain tools will be searched for in the build tree as well as in the
>> user's PATH. These tools are runtest, expect, makeinfo and texi2dvi.
> I did previously suggest removing the existing support for building and
> using these tools in-tree
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01674.html>, but there was
> pushback on that. I don't know, however, if it actually depends on
> anything built into automake.
Hmm... Couldn't the issues (if any) be worked around by explicitly
re-defining the $(EXPECT), $(RUNTEST), $(MAKEINFO) and $(TEXI2DVI)
variables in the relevant Makefiles so that they point to the bundled
EXPECT = $(top_builddir)/../expect/expect
and so on.
>> - The check target doesn't depend on all.
> I'm not aware of a need for that.
Glad to hear that.