[top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Nathanael Nerode]

Submitting for general consideration.  Plus, it affects a bug.  Tested
on i686-pc-linux-gnu.

	PR bootstrap/11408
	* Makefile.tpl: Set INSTALL and friends using autoconf.  Remove
	unused INSTALL_PROGRAM_ARGS.
	* configure.in: Use AC_PROG_INSTALL.
	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
	* configure: Regenerate.

Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.65
diff -u -r1.65 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl	8 Jul 2003 05:54:54 -0000	1.65
+++ Makefile.tpl	11 Jul 2003 04:56:20 -0000
@@ -64,14 +64,10 @@
 man8dir = $(mandir)/man8
 man9dir = $(mandir)/man9
 
-# INSTALL_PROGRAM_ARGS is changed by configure.in to use -x for a
-# cygwin host.
-INSTALL_PROGRAM_ARGS =
-
-INSTALL = $(SHELL) $$s/install-sh -c
-INSTALL_PROGRAM = $(INSTALL) $(INSTALL_PROGRAM_ARGS)
-INSTALL_SCRIPT = $(INSTALL)
-INSTALL_DATA = $(INSTALL) -m 644
+INSTALL = @INSTALL@
+INSTALL_PROGRAM = @INSTALL_PROGRAM@
+INSTALL_SCRIPT = @INSTALL_SCRIPT@
+INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA
 
 # -------------------------------------------------
 # Miscellaneous non-standard autoconf-set variables
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.243
diff -u -r1.243 configure.in
--- configure.in	27 Jun 2003 17:33:51 -0000	1.243
+++ configure.in	11 Jul 2003 04:56:24 -0000
@@ -23,6 +23,9 @@
 AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM
 AC_ARG_PROGRAM
 
+# Get 'install' or 'install-sh' and its variants.
+AC_PROG_INSTALL
+
 sinclude(config/acx.m4)
 
 ### we might need to use some other shell than /bin/sh for running subshells

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

Re: [top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Andrew Pinski]

On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 22:40 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Submitting for general consideration.  Plus, it affects a bug.  Tested
> on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> 	PR bootstrap/11408
> 	* Makefile.tpl: Set INSTALL and friends using autoconf.  Remove
> 	unused INSTALL_PROGRAM_ARGS.
> 	* configure.in: Use AC_PROG_INSTALL.
> 	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
> 	* configure: Regenerate.

Actually it should also fix PR 11273 which is for
libobjc but looks to be the same bug.


Thanks,
Andrew pinski

Re: [top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Zack Weinberg]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

> Submitting for general consideration.  Plus, it affects a bug.  Tested
> on i686-pc-linux-gnu.

I've been wondering for years why GCC 'make install' never used the
perfectly good /usr/bin/install on Linux or Solaris.

> +INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA

Typo - need a trailing @.

Do similar patches need to be put into the subdirectory Makefiles, or
do they just take the values of INSTALL_* passed down from the top
level?

zw

Re: [top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Nathanael Nerode]

Zack said:
>I've been wondering for years why GCC 'make install' never used the
>perfectly good /usr/bin/install on Linux or Solaris.
>
>> +INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA
>
>Typo - need a trailing @.
Thanks for catching that.  (Gah; I thought I'd looked at the resulting
Makefile and it was OK...  I guess I saw what I expected to see.)  OK 
with that fix?

>Do similar patches need to be put into the subdirectory Makefiles, or
>do they just take the values of INSTALL_* passed down from the top
>level?
I think generally they just take the passed-down copies.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

Re: [top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Zack Weinberg]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

> Zack said:
>>I've been wondering for years why GCC 'make install' never used the
>>perfectly good /usr/bin/install on Linux or Solaris.
>>
>>> +INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA
>>
>>Typo - need a trailing @.
> Thanks for catching that.  (Gah; I thought I'd looked at the resulting
> Makefile and it was OK...  I guess I saw what I expected to see.)  OK 
> with that fix?

I can't approve toplevel patches, but it looks good to me.

>>Do similar patches need to be put into the subdirectory Makefiles, or
>>do they just take the values of INSTALL_* passed down from the top
>>level?
> I think generally they just take the passed-down copies.

Would you mind checking that?

zw

Re: [top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Phil Edwards]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:58:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Zack said:
> 
> >Do similar patches need to be put into the subdirectory Makefiles, or
> >do they just take the values of INSTALL_* passed down from the top
> >level?
> I think generally they just take the passed-down copies.

Yep, see 11408.  Fixing the lines in a subdirectory Makefile has no effect;
it must be fixed at the top level.  (And the subdirectory ones should possibly
be removed to avoid confusion.)

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams

Re: [top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Phil Edwards wrote:

> Yep, see 11408.  Fixing the lines in a subdirectory Makefile has no effect;
> it must be fixed at the top level.  (And the subdirectory ones should possibly
> be removed to avoid confusion.)

Except that the shared libgcc installation uses, or did use, the 
definition in the subdirectory Makefile - not through design to avoid an 
unsafe shell script using programs that might be linked against libgcc, 
but rather through fragile implementation accident because of stage 
submakes not getting the toplevel definition of INSTALL passed down.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-03/msg01327.html

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk

Re: [top level] autoconfiscate INSTALL usage

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jul 12, 2003, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

> Zack said:
>> I've been wondering for years why GCC 'make install' never used the
>> perfectly good /usr/bin/install on Linux or Solaris.
>> 
>>> +INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA
>> 
>> Typo - need a trailing @.
> Thanks for catching that.  (Gah; I thought I'd looked at the resulting
> Makefile and it was OK...  I guess I saw what I expected to see.)  OK 
> with that fix?

Yup, thanks.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer