From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11319 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2009 20:31:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 11308 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2009 20:31:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:31:22 +0000 Received: from zps36.corp.google.com (zps36.corp.google.com [172.25.146.36]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n53KVK73012825 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:31:20 -0700 Received: from pzk31 (pzk31.prod.google.com [10.243.19.159]) by zps36.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n53KUqsU025679 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:31:19 -0700 Received: by pzk31 with SMTP id 31so230672pzk.16 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.133.19 with SMTP id g19mr504406wfd.327.1244061078701; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain.google.com (dhcp-172-22-125-203.mtv.corp.google.com [172.22.125.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm723472wfi.12.2009.06.03.13.31.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Ralf Wildenhues Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: makefile dependency revamp References: <20090526033837.GG1387@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20090603183902.GA20960@gmx.de> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090603183902.GA20960@gmx.de> (Ralf Wildenhues's message of "Wed\, 3 Jun 2009 20\:39\:02 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 Ralf Wildenhues writes: > I'm sure I must be missing something blatantly obvious, but: > why is bintuils generating dependencies in trees that use automake > anyway? Is there anything wrong with automatic dependency tracking? Historically we did it because 1) our dependency tracking system preceded to conversion to automake, so we had it anyhow; 2) when we converted to automake, automake's dependency tracking was not reliable for all compilers, and since the binutils are required for gcc on some platforms people do build the binutils with all sorts of compilers. These days it may be quite reasonable to switch over to automake's dependency tracking. Ian