This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- From: Miles Bader <miles at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Stefano Lattarini <stefano dot lattarini at gmail dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, ams at gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, 11034 at debbugs dot gnu dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org, automake at gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, joseph at codesourcery dot com, "automake-patches\ at gnu dot org" <automake-patches at gnu dot org>, Roumen Petrov <bugtrack at roumenpetrov dot info>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:53:15 +0900
- Subject: Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- References: <4F72E239.9010404@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1203281121190.12161@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <4F7301DD.7090401@gmail.com> <mcr1uoci96g.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com> <4F76C08E.6050707@gmail.com> <E1SDuIY-0004aQ-0U@fencepost.gnu.org> <4F76D8F2.8050804__46768.5595191599$1333188914$gmane$org@gmail.com> <87zkaujjn1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F79BFDB.1070904@gmail.com> <87ty12i2pd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F79C5F2.2020807__46832.8654104427$1333380662$gmane$org@gmail.com> <87hax2hqop.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F7A0341.9050305__49963.8538728051$1333396325$gmane$org@gmail.com> <87d37pj39j.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F7A10D7.8050908@gmail.com> <mcrwr5x6dsk.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com> <4F7B57C4.9000402@gmail.com> <4F7B6E2B.2080504@redhat.com>
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>> OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
>
> ...
>> it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
>> "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you.
> ...
>> *undocumented* option '!hack!info-in-builddir' (whose name should
>> made it clear that it is not meant for public consumption).
>
> So will this be called a hack forever, or will the naming be revisited
> before a release? IMO, either the feature is sensible, and there doesn't
> seem to be a good reason other users couldn't also use it, and hence it
> should get a non-hackish name and be documented; or it isn't sensible, and
> then it shouldn't exist. Why the second-class treatment?
I suspect there are better, cleaner, ways to accomplish the underlying
goal, but I suppose the gcc maintainers don't want to spend the time
fiddling around with their build infrastructure for such a minor
issue...
-miles
--
Alone, adj. In bad company.
- References:
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option