This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Require GNU make?
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "ISHIKAWA,chiaki" <ishikawa at yk dot rim dot or dot jp>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:23:39 -0700
- Subject: Re: Require GNU make?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <201405201619 dot s4KGJpRg002591 at ignucius dot se dot axis dot com> <201405281315 dot s4SDFpU2031819 at ignucius dot se dot axis dot com> <20140528141505 dot GJ6679 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <53870721 dot 3080402 at redhat dot com> <53872DEC dot 1050209 at arm dot com> <538730C1 dot 6040105 at rtems dot org> <538734C8 dot 4030300 at arm dot com> <53875BB6 dot 6040508 at yk dot rim dot or dot jp> <5387B1FB dot 4030209 at redhat dot com>
> Not really. It just means that before building binutils, you need
> to build GNU make. That is, in effect, push the build system
> portability problem to a single and logical entry point, rather
> than have all GNU programs (that use make) need to care. GNU
> only needs to invent the wheel once.
> GNU make even builds with Microsoft's compilers. At least,
> there's README.W32.template in the sources saying that's supported,
> and I see "make_msvc_net2003.sln" and "make_msvc_net2003.vcproj" files.
> Nowadays you're more likely to start by cross compiling, but in any case,
> that is really a false problem. That someone would just have to
> port/build GNU make first with the proprietary compiler, _then_
> port binutils, then gcc, etc.
I am particularly sensitive to the argument that GNU projects
at large shouldn't have to suffer because we can't ask developers
(or build systems such as the *BSDs) to build GNU Make first and
use that instead.