bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Miles Bader miles@gnu.org
Tue Apr 3 23:53:00 GMT 2012

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


Alone, adj. In bad company.

More information about the Binutils mailing list