From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23830 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2011 05:09:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 23822 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2011 05:09:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (HELO mailout-de.gmx.net) (213.165.64.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:08:55 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2011 05:08:52 -0000 Received: from xdsl-89-0-186-181.netcologne.de (EHLO localhost.localdomain) [89.0.186.181] by mail.gmx.net (mp046) with SMTP; 16 Feb 2011 06:08:52 +0100 Received: from ralf by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpZdD-0006ol-3d; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 06:08:51 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:09:00 -0000 From: Ralf Wildenhues To: Steve Ellcey Cc: Andreas Schwab , binutils@sourceware.org, "H.J. Lu" Subject: Re: PATCH: PR binutils/12283: bfd/doc doesn't support parallel build Message-ID: <20110216050850.GA26163@gmx.de> References: <201101282332.p0SNWFT04949@lucas.cup.hp.com> <20110129094232.GD11288@gmx.de> <1296498781.12233.80.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <20110204063423.GC14132@gmx.de> <1297814811.2267.5.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1297814811.2267.5.camel@hpsje.cup.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 * Steve Ellcey wrote on Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:06:51AM CET: > On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 18:51 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Ralf Wildenhues writes: > > > > > bfd/doc/ChangeLog: > > > 2011-02-04 Ralf Wildenhues > > > > > > 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. > I am still interested in this patch as a fix for hppa where the parallel > builds of chew do not result in identical binaries. I didn't mean to drop the patch. I just haven't had the time to test the changes described below, not being too familiar with how binutils distribution works yet. > Would distributing stamp-chew be a problem? I don't think it is right to do that; other code invokes $(MKDOC) and for that the chew binary needs to be present in the user build tree. My idea was to clean stamp-chew when $(MKDOC) was cleaned (i.e., in MOSTLYCLEANFILES). It should not be a problem if the texi files rules' get triggered for the user of a tarball, because the generated files should be identical. Even if the rules for the info files get triggered, they should not be a problem because of the 'missing' script. But I'd really like to test this well before proposing a new patch. Thanks, Ralf