From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-70154-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25014 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2011 00:07:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 25006 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2011 00:06:59 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com (HELO g1t0027.austin.hp.com) (15.216.28.34)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:06:54 +0000
Received: from g1t0038.austin.hp.com (g1t0038.austin.hp.com [16.236.32.44])	by g1t0027.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0152387E2;	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [16.89.92.85] (hpsje.cup.hp.com [16.89.92.85])	by g1t0038.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CD430407;	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:06:51 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: PATCH: PR binutils/12283: bfd/doc doesn't support parallel build
From: Steve Ellcey <sje@cup.hp.com>
Reply-To: sje@cup.hp.com
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>, binutils@sourceware.org, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2zkqbwuvk.fsf@igel.home>
References: <AANLkTikAd7jWXN+2bi-OeR_-cQq7ivpSyVz+4165trVS@mail.gmail.com>	 <201101282332.p0SNWFT04949@lucas.cup.hp.com>	 <20110129094232.GD11288@gmx.de>	 <1296498781.12233.80.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com>	 <20110204063423.GC14132@gmx.de>  <m2zkqbwuvk.fsf@igel.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:07:00 -0000
Message-ID: <1297814811.2267.5.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 18:51 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > bfd/doc/ChangeLog:
> > 2011-02-04  Ralf Wildenhues  <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>
> >
> > 	PR binutils/12283
> > 	* Makefile.am (stamp-chew): New target.
> > 	Use throughout as dependency for targets that need chew,
> > 	instead of depdending on chew.c or on chew directly.
> > 	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
> 
> I think that means that stamp-chew will need to be distributed, since
> the distributed *.texi files depend on it.
> 
> Andreas.

I am still interested in this patch as a fix for hppa where the parallel
builds of chew do not result in identical binaries.

Would distributing stamp-chew be a problem?  I am not familiar with the
distribution setup or builds.  Is it just a question of adding
stamp-chew to MAINTAINERCLEANFILES?

Steve Ellcey
sje@cup.hp.com