This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Opcode membership proposal
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:57:46 +0930
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Opcode membership proposal
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1012181108290 dot 4142 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1110311233290 dot 28657 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <87obway4f5 dot fsf at firetop dot home> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1208092012040 dot 20608 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <20130617115141 dot GU21523 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1306171606330 dot 16287 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 04:18:45PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > * Makefile.am (mips-opc.lo): Add rules to create automatic
> > dependency files. Pass archdefs.
> > (micromips-opc.lo, mips16-opc.lo): Likewise.
> > * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
> Hmm, this looks horribly tied to automake's internals to me and I am
> afraid is bound to break as soon as automake maintainers decide to change
> how the rules are generated. I know that this is going to be a pain, but
> I wonder if it could be rewritten in a way that is portable across
> automake versions, that is only relying on automake's published interface.
I used more or less the same rules as Ralf Wildenhues added for the
binutils project back in 2009-08, when he fixed a lot of Makefile.am
issues for us. Judging from his activity in the automake project, I'd
say he knew a thing or two about automake, so I personally would be a
little cautious about using some other construct!
Australia Development Lab, IBM