Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[cgd]

At Sat, 3 May 2003 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC), "DJ Delorie" wrote:
> I think for this patch, manually applying it to both Makefile.tpl and
> Makefile.in would be acceptable.
> 
> Oh, and... approved ;-)

Thanks, i've applied to both gcc and src repositories.

I suppose with the recent changes to use --no-split instead, this
patch may not be strictly necessary on the GCC 3.3 branch, but it
could be a boon to people building combined-tree builds with gcc +
binutils 2.14 (and whatever texinfo happens to be installed on their
systems).

An alternative is to convert the binutils release branch
Makefile.{in,tpl} to use --no-split instead (or to use both patches
8-), i guess.

Thoughts? 

Mark?  How about this for the gcc 3.3 branch?  (And, now, or after
3.3?  8-)

Daniel, which (or both) would you like to see on the binutils branch?


cgd
--
2003-05-02  Chris Demetriou  <cgd@broadcom.com>

	* Makefile.tpl: Require "makeinfo" from texinfo 4.2 or later.
	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.

Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -u -p -r1.44 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl	28 Apr 2003 02:23:46 -0000	1.44
+++ Makefile.tpl	2 May 2003 21:10:25 -0000
@@ -194,13 +194,13 @@ M4 = `if [ -f $$r/m4/m4 ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/m4/m4 ; \
 	else echo ${DEFAULT_M4} ; fi`
 
-# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4 or
+# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4.2 or
 # higher, else we use the "missing" dummy.
 MAKEINFO=@MAKEINFO@
 USUAL_MAKEINFO = `if [ -f $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ; \
 	else if (makeinfo --version \
-	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|[4-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
+	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|4\.[2-9]|[5-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
         then echo makeinfo; else echo $$s/missing makeinfo; fi; fi`
 
 # This just becomes part of the MAKEINFO definition passed down to

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 06:33:39PM -0700, cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> At Sat, 3 May 2003 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC), "DJ Delorie" wrote:
> > I think for this patch, manually applying it to both Makefile.tpl and
> > Makefile.in would be acceptable.
> > 
> > Oh, and... approved ;-)
> 
> Thanks, i've applied to both gcc and src repositories.
> 
> I suppose with the recent changes to use --no-split instead, this
> patch may not be strictly necessary on the GCC 3.3 branch, but it
> could be a boon to people building combined-tree builds with gcc +
> binutils 2.14 (and whatever texinfo happens to be installed on their
> systems).
> 
> An alternative is to convert the binutils release branch
> Makefile.{in,tpl} to use --no-split instead (or to use both patches
> 8-), i guess.
> 
> Thoughts? 
> 
> Mark?  How about this for the gcc 3.3 branch?  (And, now, or after
> 3.3?  8-)
> 
> Daniel, which (or both) would you like to see on the binutils branch?

I haven't been paying attention.  Why does binutils need it?


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[cgd]

At Fri, 2 May 2003 21:53:34 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Daniel, which (or both) would you like to see on the binutils branch?
> 
> I haven't been paying attention.  Why does binutils need it?

heh.  using with installed makeinfo 4.0 in path:

makeinfo --split-size=5000000 -I../../src/libiberty ../../src/libiberty/libiberty.texi
makeinfo: unrecognized option `--split-size=5000000'
Try `makeinfo --help' for more information.
[...]
gmake[1]: *** [libiberty.info] Error 1


8-)

options are:

(1) remove --split-size use (go with --no-split instead), which is
    compatible with earlier texinfo.  (This which has been done on the
    gcc 3.3 branch, but *not* on trunk.)

(2) require texinfo 4.2 or later.  (done on gcc & src trunk.)

(3) both.


(1) gets rid of the error above, but apparently there are other
reasons (they've been kicked out of my memory, see the thread on gcc@
8-) which 4.2 and later are desirable.



cgd

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 07:41:50PM -0700, cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> At Fri, 2 May 2003 21:53:34 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Daniel, which (or both) would you like to see on the binutils branch?
> > 
> > I haven't been paying attention.  Why does binutils need it?
> 
> heh.  using with installed makeinfo 4.0 in path:
> 
> makeinfo --split-size=5000000 -I../../src/libiberty ../../src/libiberty/libiberty.texi
> makeinfo: unrecognized option `--split-size=5000000'
> Try `makeinfo --help' for more information.
> [...]
> gmake[1]: *** [libiberty.info] Error 1
> 
> 
> 8-)
> 
> options are:
> 
> (1) remove --split-size use (go with --no-split instead), which is
>     compatible with earlier texinfo.  (This which has been done on the
>     gcc 3.3 branch, but *not* on trunk.)
> 
> (2) require texinfo 4.2 or later.  (done on gcc & src trunk.)
> 
> (3) both.
> 
> 
> (1) gets rid of the error above, but apparently there are other
> reasons (they've been kicked out of my memory, see the thread on gcc@
> 8-) which 4.2 and later are desirable.

Hmm.  For now, let's go for --no-split.  Would you mind fixing the
branch?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[cgd]

At Sat, 3 May 2003 00:55:19 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> [ binutils release branch makeinfo ] 
> Hmm.  For now, let's go for --no-split.  Would you mind fixing the
> branch?

Sure, i'll try to get to it tmrw or sunday.

frying other fish tonight.  8-)


chris

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[Mark Mitchell]

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 18:33, cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> At Sat, 3 May 2003 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC), "DJ Delorie" wrote:
> > I think for this patch, manually applying it to both Makefile.tpl and
> > Makefile.in would be acceptable.
> > 
> > Oh, and... approved ;-)
> 
> Thanks, i've applied to both gcc and src repositories.
> 
> I suppose with the recent changes to use --no-split instead, this
> patch may not be strictly necessary on the GCC 3.3 branch, but it
> could be a boon to people building combined-tree builds with gcc +
> binutils 2.14 (and whatever texinfo happens to be installed on their
> systems).
> 
> An alternative is to convert the binutils release branch
> Makefile.{in,tpl} to use --no-split instead (or to use both patches
> 8-), i guess.
> 
> Thoughts? 
> 
> Mark?  How about this for the gcc 3.3 branch?  (And, now, or after
> 3.3?  8-)

This is OK for 3.3; check it in ASAP.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[cgd]

At 02 May 2003 23:58:26 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Mark?  How about this for the gcc 3.3 branch?  (And, now, or after
> > 3.3?  8-)
> 
> This is OK for 3.3; check it in ASAP.

OK.  The exact patch didn't apply (looks like USUAL_MAKEINFO, etc.,
was added on the trunk), but the merge was trivial.  8-)

Below is exactly what was applied.



cgd
--
2003-05-03  Chris Demetriou  <cgd@broadcom.com>

        Merge from mainline:
        2003-05-02  Chris Demetriou  <cgd@broadcom.com>
        * Makefile.tpl: Require "makeinfo" from texinfo 4.2 or later.
        * Makefile.in: Regenerate.

Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.129.2.7
diff -u -p -r1.129.2.7 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in	29 Apr 2003 15:03:59 -0000	1.129.2.7
+++ Makefile.in	3 May 2003 18:07:48 -0000
@@ -151,12 +151,12 @@ M4 = `if [ -f $$r/m4/m4 ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/m4/m4 ; \
 	else echo ${DEFAULT_M4} ; fi`
 
-# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4 or
+# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4.2 or
 # higher, else we use the "missing" dummy.
 MAKEINFO = `if [ -f $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ; \
 	else if (makeinfo --version \
-	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|[4-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
+	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|4\.[2-9]|[5-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
         then echo makeinfo; else echo $$s/missing makeinfo; fi; fi`
 
 # This just becomes part of the MAKEINFO definition passed down to
Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.13.6.6
diff -u -p -r1.13.6.6 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl	29 Apr 2003 15:03:59 -0000	1.13.6.6
+++ Makefile.tpl	3 May 2003 18:07:48 -0000
@@ -154,12 +154,12 @@ M4 = `if [ -f $$r/m4/m4 ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/m4/m4 ; \
 	else echo ${DEFAULT_M4} ; fi`
 
-# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4 or
+# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4.2 or
 # higher, else we use the "missing" dummy.
 MAKEINFO = `if [ -f $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ; \
 	else if (makeinfo --version \
-	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|[4-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
+	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|4\.[2-9]|[5-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
         then echo makeinfo; else echo $$s/missing makeinfo; fi; fi`
 
 # This just becomes part of the MAKEINFO definition passed down to

Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[cgd]

At Sat, 3 May 2003 00:55:19 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> [ binutils branch solution ]
> Hmm.  For now, let's go for --no-split.  Would you mind fixing the
> branch?

I've done so.


cgd

[patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better

[cgd]

At Fri, 2 May 2003 08:23:00 +0200 (CEST), Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Would you mind submitting an updated
> version of your patch so that the GCC Makefile/configury maintainers
> can have a look?

It's below.  And this time i've sent it to the right place.  (my
original msg wasn't going to include a patch, and i forgot to change
gcc -> gcc-patches when i added the patch.  8-)

I don't have autogen, so i just applied the same patch to makefile.in,
and tested the result w/ texinfo 4.0 to build mipsisa64-elf.  I've not
tested this w/ a 'good' version of texinfo / makeinfo.

If approved, I'd appreciate it if somebody else would apply this
(since i'd rather have them actually regenerate Makefile.in than have
me hack it.  8-)


cgd
--
2003-05-02  Chris Demetriou  <cgd@broadcom.com>

	* Makefile.tpl: Require "makeinfo" from texinfo 4.2 or later.
	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.

Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -u -p -r1.44 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl	28 Apr 2003 02:23:46 -0000	1.44
+++ Makefile.tpl	2 May 2003 21:10:25 -0000
@@ -194,13 +194,13 @@ M4 = `if [ -f $$r/m4/m4 ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/m4/m4 ; \
 	else echo ${DEFAULT_M4} ; fi`
 
-# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4 or
+# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4.2 or
 # higher, else we use the "missing" dummy.
 MAKEINFO=@MAKEINFO@
 USUAL_MAKEINFO = `if [ -f $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ] ; \
 	then echo $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ; \
 	else if (makeinfo --version \
-	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|[4-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
+	  | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|4\.[2-9]|[5-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \
         then echo makeinfo; else echo $$s/missing makeinfo; fi; fi`
 
 # This just becomes part of the MAKEINFO definition passed down to