This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: configure.{in -> ac} rename (commit 35eafcc71b) broke in-tree binutils building of gcc
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:50:40 +0930
- Subject: Re: configure.{in -> ac} rename (commit 35eafcc71b) broke in-tree binutils building of gcc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55A4EEC202000078000907FE at mail dot emea dot novell dot com>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>
> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways. Quite
> a bit of digging resulted in me finding that gcc/configure.ac looks for
> configure.in in a number of binutils subtrees.
I haven't used combined tree builds of binutils+gcc for a very long
time, so this issue wasn't on my radar at all, sorry.
> Globally replacing
> configure.in by configure.[ai][cn] appears to address this, but I'm not
> sure whether that would be an acceptable change
Certainly sounds reasonable.
> (there doesn't seem
> to be a fix for this in gcc trunk either, which I originally expected I could
> simply backport).
The configure.in->configure.ac rename happened over a year ago so I
guess this shows that not too many people use combined binutils+gcc
builds nowadays. I've always found combined binutils+gcc builds not
worth the bother compared to simply building and installing binutils
first, as Jim suggests.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM