[PATCH 1/5 v2] newlib: libm: move manual into top-level build

[Jon Turney]

On 01/02/2022 03:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2022 14:58, Jon Turney wrote:
>> On 28/01/2022 07:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/newlib/libm/Makefile.inc
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>>> +info_TEXINFOS += %D%/libm.texi
>>> +%C%_libm_TEXINFOS = %D%/targetdep.tex $(LIBM_CHEWOUT_FILES)
>>> +
>>> +LIBM_CHEWOUT_FILES =
>>> +
>>> +LIBM_CHAPTERS =
>>> +
>>> +%D%/libm.dvi: %D%/targetdep.tex $(LIBM_CHEWOUT_FILES)
>>> +
>>> +%D%/targetdep.tex: $(LIBM_CHAPTERS)
>>> +	$(AM_V_GEN)cat $^ > $@.tmp
>>> +	$(AM_V_at)$(SHELL) $(newlib_basedir)/../move-if-change $@.tmp $@
>>> +	$(AM_V_at)touch $@
>>
>> We carefully only update $@ if it's changed, then touch it anyhow?
>>
>> This seems like a transcription error, since originally we were touching
>> a timestamp file, or perhaps leftover from testing?
> 
> you're right of course.  i saw other places that weren't using the stamp
> idiom, and then when rewriting these rules i remembered those places and
> thought i wouldn't bother deploying the stamp pattern here since it was
> already doing it wrong.  but i misremembered which ones were wrong.
> 
>> The same pattern occurs later, as well.
> 
> which one do you mean ?  the .xml ones ?  those currently aren't using the
> stamp idiom.  or do you just mean the multiple places where targetdep.tex
> is generated ?

%D%/targetdep.tex rule in 3/5
%D%/libc.xml rule in 4/5
%D%/libm.xml rule in 4/5

> 
>>> --- a/newlib/libm/common/Makefile.am
>>> +++ b/newlib/libm/common/Makefile.am
>>>    
>>> -CHAPTERS =
>>> +LIBM_CHEWOUT_FILES =
>>> +LIBM_CHAPTERS =
>>> +include ./Makefile.inc
>>
>> Is this boilerplate really needed before including the makefile
>> fragment, since '+=' should work even if the variable isn't already defined?
> 
> yes, automake enforces it

Fair enough.