bfd/Makefile.am discrepancies

Alan Modra amodra@bigpond.net.au
Fri Aug 30 01:13:00 GMT 2002


On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 05:49:41PM -0700, Clarke, Stephen wrote:
> I just noticed that when I rebuild bfd/Makefile.am using
> 
> make dep-am
> 
> that there are several discrepancies between the auto-generated
> version and the version in cvs.  Am I right in thinking that
> this shouldn't happen because bfd/Makefile.am should always be
> automatically generated?

Yes, the dependencies should always be auto-generated, but people do
tend to add them by hand.  Perhaps because of not knowing about
"make dep-am", perhaps because of running into difficulties.  Some of
the differences at the moment simply look like changes have been made
to #include's without running "make dep-am".

Note that "make dep-am" should be run in a bfd dir that has been
configured with --enable-64-bit-bfd.

> I'm preparing a patch that includes a change to this file.
> I don't want to hand edit it, nor do I want my patch
> to include all the other changes that the auto-generated version
> contains.  Any chance this problem could be sorted out?

Done.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre



More information about the Binutils mailing list