This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: configure.{in -> ac} rename (commit 35eafcc71b) broke in-tree binutils building of gcc
- From: pinskia at gmail dot com
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:00:56 +0800
- Subject: Re: configure.{in -> ac} rename (commit 35eafcc71b) broke in-tree binutils building of gcc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55A4EEC202000078000907FE at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <20150715012040 dot GJ23655 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>>
>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways. Quite
>> a bit of digging resulted in me finding that gcc/configure.ac looks for
>> configure.in in a number of binutils subtrees.
>
> I haven't used combined tree builds of binutils+gcc for a very long
> time, so this issue wasn't on my radar at all, sorry.
>
>> Globally replacing
>> configure.in by configure.[ai][cn] appears to address this, but I'm not
>> sure whether that would be an acceptable change
>
> Certainly sounds reasonable.
>
>> (there doesn't seem
>> to be a fix for this in gcc trunk either, which I originally expected I could
>> simply backport).
>
> The configure.in->configure.ac rename happened over a year ago so I
> guess this shows that not too many people use combined binutils+gcc
> builds nowadays. I've always found combined binutils+gcc builds not
> worth the bother compared to simply building and installing binutils
> first, as Jim suggests.
Combined builds are very useful for doing Candian crosses. Though it might just because my build script has been doing a combined build now for 5 years. Also I noticed it was broken and ignored it as my script did not break, only when I did a native build did it break.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> --
> Alan Modra
> Australia Development Lab, IBM