[PATCH]: A new one for ld/Makefile.am
H . J . Lu
hjl@valinux.com
Thu Mar 9 20:50:00 GMT 2000
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:07:42AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 11:12:42PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Mar 9, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> all: stmp-run-ld
> >> >> stmp-run-ld: ld-new
> >> >> @ ./ld-new > $@ 2>&1
> >>
> >> > Tried. It doesn't work with parallel build due to the recursive make.
> >>
> >> Use `all-am', then.
>
> > It works a little better. But it still doesn't work right since
> > ld-new$(EXEEXT) is made through the recursive make.
>
> I can't see any recursive makes involving ld-new other than the one
> automake itself creates, and the target of that recursive make is
> all-am. Am I missing anything?
>
It was my mistake. It works. Here is a new patch for ld/Makefile.am.
Any objections?
Thanks.
H.J.
----
2000-03-09 H.J. Lu <hjl@gnu.org>
* Makefile.am (stmp-run-ld): New target.
(all-am): Depend on it.
(clean-stmp-run-ld): New target.
(clean): Depend on it.
* Makefile.in: Rebuild.
--- Makefile.am.orig Thu Mar 9 10:23:09 2000
+++ Makefile.am Thu Mar 9 20:43:30 2000
@@ -674,6 +674,20 @@ check-DEJAGNU: site.exp
else echo "WARNING: could not find \`runtest'" 1>&2; :;\
fi
+# We want to run the new linker once to create .libs/lt-ld-new if
+# necessary. Otherwise, the new linker may not work. We don't care
+# if it really works or not.
+stmp-run-ld: ld-new$(EXEEXT)
+ -./ld-new$(EXEEXT) -v > $@ 2>&1
+ touch $@
+
+all-am: stmp-run-ld
+
+clean-stmp-run-ld:
+ -rm -f stmp-run-ld
+
+clean-am: clean-stmp-run-ld
+
# Rules for testing by relinking ld itself.
# A similar test is in the testsuite. This target is for ease of use
# when porting ld.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list