This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [toplevel] GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:14:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [toplevel] GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
References: <20030827171507.GA14215@nevyn.them.org> <200308271817.h7RIHrR23997@greed.delorie.com>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:17:53PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > DJ, I know you asked for this to be added to acx.m4 instead.  Unfortunately,
> > it uses constructs that autoconf 2.13 can't parse, thus breaking
> > regenerating the toplevel configure.  So I put it in a separate file after
> > all.
> 
> No version conditionals?

There's probably a way to do it, but my m4 fu is too weak to figure it
out.

> > Tested, along with the patches to follow momentarily, on an extensive
> > collection of targets (all --build=i686-linux).  Is this OK?
> 
> Ok.
> 
> /me wonders if function-per-file is a good precident to start.

No opinion here.  Zack seemed in favor of this but I don't recall
why...

Checked in to gcc and src.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

References:
- [toplevel] GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: [toplevel] GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: DJ Delorie

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]