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: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:06:40 -0700
- 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> <20150715012040 dot GJ23655 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <55EC5D3A-611F-413F-9D6B-A674B9789125 at gmail dot com>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM, <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> Combined builds are very useful for doing Candian crosses. Though it might just because my build script has been doing a combined build now for 5 years. Also I noticed it was broken and ignored it as my script did not break, only when I did a native build did it break.
>
We should fix gcc/configure.ac.
--
H.J.