This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB 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: Fix in data-directory

On 10/21/2010 08:28 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On Thursday 21 October 2010 01:17:42, Jie Zhang wrote:
On 10/21/2010 08:14 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On Thursday 21 October 2010 01:10:14, Jie Zhang wrote:
I don't think this is an issue. I think in the last more than 10 years,
no one did "make -j all install" since the same instance in
gdb/ has been there since it was created. Actually if you do
that in current gdb, it will not install gdb at all. I usually issue

make -j4 all
make install

FWIW, I got surprised before learning that "make -j4 install" misbehaves like that. I'd rather have it fixed. It just sounds like a buglet people got used to dealing with.

I didn't mean that "make -j4 install" misbehaves for gdb. It's "make -j4
all install" that misbehaves.

Well, okay, it's the same difference.

It's caused by the same problem.  If you stop making "install" depend
on "all install-only", but make it depend on "all" only, as Doug was
saying, then "make -j4 all install" stops misbehaving, because "install"
depends on "all", so "install" only proceeds after "all" is done.

I don't think it's really necessary to fix that. binutils and gcc also don't allow "make -j4 install" to directly after "configure". "make -j4 all install" also fails for binutils and gcc. I think it's already an convention that those software are built with

make install

Do we really need the effort to fix GDB?

-- Jie Zhang CodeSourcery

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