This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove symlinks created in argv0-symlink.exp and general cleanup
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:49:46 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove symlinks created in argv0-symlink.exp and general cleanup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1438287227-11303-1-git-send-email-simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com> <55BF7962 dot 3060106 at redhat dot com> <55BF85BC dot 8040102 at ericsson dot com> <55BF9811 dot 50202 at redhat dot com> <20150804172110 dot GI4777 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22TsqOiq6AM9h_0A-a7rp=dX6ds-E8K21goX+AK5UMjadA at mail dot gmail dot com> <55CB123F dot 70603 at redhat dot com> <87r3n85ukx dot fsf at redhat dot com> <20150812172225 dot GE22245 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22QyyO9ni8bAPcweauUPWdH59rFiTDwYf5W6YxY9gwBQiQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150812184307 dot GF22245 at adacore dot com>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> I suspect, though I haven't tried, if we remove the
>> check-parallel/check-single test, it would be straightforward to
>> remove the GNU make requirement and just move the details to a wrapper
>> script.
>
> Dependency tracking also requires GNU/Make; would you be able to
> take care of that through the wrapper?
Maybe I missed something but I didn't see any real dependency
tracking as far as the invocation of runtest goes.
Clearly the current implementation uses dependencies
to implement check-parallel, but I wouldn't call those
dependencies per-se.
>> Always invoking runtest by a wrapper script has other benefits.
>>
>> I'm not advocating for this, I only ever use GNU make.
>> But if the topic comes up, it's not clear to me GNU make
>> is an absolute requirement.
>
> It would be nice to list the additional benefits and decide whether
> we want to go that route or not, ideally more-or-less independently
> of whether we want to require GNU/Make or not.
>
> The reason why I am advocating in favor of requiring GNU/Make is that
> we are regularly hindered or doing extra work trying to support non-
> GNU/Make, while on the other hand, the community affected by this
> proposal only need to update their build procedures to put GNU/Make
> on their PATH. And since GCC already requires GNU/Make, I cannot
> understand why it would be difficult to do so.
How often does it come up in the context of "make check"
(beyond the check-parallel implementation).
Other reasons for wanting to require GNU/Make are outside the scope
of my email. :-)