From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3394 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2013 14:28:25 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 3382 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jun 2013 14:28:25 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:28:24 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Ur7kk-0003yE-Vp from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:28:23 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:28:22 -0700 Received: from [172.30.64.155] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:28:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:28:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Alan Modra CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Opcode membership proposal In-Reply-To: <20130618002746.GV21523@bubble.grove.modra.org> Message-ID: References: <87obway4f5.fsf@firetop.home> <20130617115141.GU21523@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20130618002746.GV21523@bubble.grove.modra.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Alan Modra wrote: > > > * Makefile.am (mips-opc.lo): Add rules to create automatic > > > dependency files. Pass archdefs. > > > (micromips-opc.lo, mips16-opc.lo): Likewise. > > > * Makefile.in: Regenerate. > > > > Hmm, this looks horribly tied to automake's internals to me and I am > > afraid is bound to break as soon as automake maintainers decide to change > > how the rules are generated. I know that this is going to be a pain, but > > I wonder if it could be rewritten in a way that is portable across > > automake versions, that is only relying on automake's published interface. > > I used more or less the same rules as Ralf Wildenhues added for the > binutils project back in 2009-08, when he fixed a lot of Makefile.am > issues for us. Judging from his activity in the automake project, I'd > say he knew a thing or two about automake, so I personally would be a > little cautious about using some other construct! Fair enough, although for a change I'd be a little worried if a construct that is advertised as The Right One in the official manual was not going to be maintained across future versions. FWIW, as Richard's offer to make all the initialisers complete throughout these files supersedes of course any alternatives discussed by us here. Maciej