This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: makefile dependency revamp
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:58:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: makefile dependency revamp
- References: <20090526033837.GG1387@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20090603183902.GA20960@gmx.de> <m34ouxvz3f.fsf@google.com>
Hello Ian,
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:31:16PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > I'm sure I must be missing something blatantly obvious, but:
> > why is bintuils generating dependencies in trees that use automake
> > anyway? Is there anything wrong with automatic dependency tracking?
>
> Historically we did it because 1) our dependency tracking system
> preceded to conversion to automake, so we had it anyhow; 2) when we
> converted to automake, automake's dependency tracking was not reliable
> for all compilers, and since the binutils are required for gcc on some
> platforms people do build the binutils with all sorts of compilers.
OK, thanks for the explanation.
> These days it may be quite reasonable to switch over to automake's
> dependency tracking.
Guess I'll be looking at that then, too.
Cheers,
Ralf