This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb.c++ vs dos names
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: ac131313 at redhat dot com, carlton at math dot stanford dot edu
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:45:12 -0600
- Subject: Re: gdb.c++ vs dos names
If you look in config/djgpp/fnchange.lst, every file in
testsuite/gdb.c++ is in there. I presume it's because of the gdb.c++.
All the new files like pr-574.exp need to be registered.
But I'm looking at my source+build directories for gcc_5_3-branch and
HEAD and I don't see any difference with 'Makefile.in' and 'Makefile'.
In both branch and trunk:
source dir for testsuite/gdb.c++ has a 'Makefile.in'
build dir for testsuite/gdb.c++ has a 'Makefile'
So I don't know why ari.doschk.bug has this for message for HEAD
and does not have it for gcc_5_3_branch.
> I suspect that the new makefile stuff is forgetting to clean it up after
> a configure? (The script is run over a release, and not the files
> checked out of CVS).
Ermmm, it looks like an interaction between new makefile stuff and the
release process, neither of which I know very well.