This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: "already configured" for dejagnu after gmake distclean.
- From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs at dmu dot ac dot uk>
- To: Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>
- Cc: "'Binutils list'" <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:14:33 +0100 (WEST)
- Subject: RE: "already configured" for dejagnu after gmake distclean.
- References: <NUTMEGpCnJ711HZv7FD00000293@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng
> > Sent: 29 March 2004 16:48
>
> > > state; you must have not distcleaned between the two
> > configures, and
> > > now you have makefiles
> >
> > I am absolutely positive that I did that distclean in
> > between, forseeing this problem if I didn't. It is well over
> > a week ago though, and I don't have any evidence lying around
> > to prove this.
>
> Well, it pretty much has to be the case; the evidence is all those
> generated files that were showing up as being in your source tree when you
> did the cvs update. Every single one of those lines beginning '?' should
> not have been there. Perhaps you did the reconfigure, then belatedly
> remembered about distclean and ran it, then re-reconfigured; if you'd
I don't think so, because I know that configure creates the
makefiles that would be used by the subsequent make.
> already started the reconfigure, however, it might have already rewritten
> the makefiles so that by the time you did the distclean it was deleting
> stuff from the object dir not the source dir. It's hard to know how it
> first went wrong, but that's certainly the state it ended up in.
>
> > > in the source tree. In theory, configure could be
> > protected against
> > > this, detect when generated files were found in the source
> > tree, and
> > > automatically do a distclean itself, but people don't often tend to
> > > switch from the one style of building to the other, so it
> > hasn't been done.
> >
> > I'd suggest that this is more common than might be thought,
> > because it is one of the often-suggested remedies to an
[...]
>
> I'm in full agreement with you. AFAIC configure should flat-out refuse to
> run in the source tree. It's nothing but a source of trouble and confusion.
> It could even be the case that 'make distclean' has a bug in it and hasn't
> been working properly when run in the source dir for some time, but nobody's
> noticed....
Would it be of any help to test this out, and point people at the
results? I'm willing to do that.
>
>
> cheers,
> DaveK