From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7051 invoked by alias); 2 May 2003 21:44:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7039 invoked from network); 2 May 2003 21:44:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mms2.broadcom.com) (63.70.210.59) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 May 2003 21:44:24 -0000 Received: from 63.70.210.1 by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.2)); Fri, 02 May 2003 14:41:13 -0700 Received: from mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com [10.16.128.236]) by mon-irva-11.broadcom.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16274; Fri, 2 May 2003 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com (dt-sj3-118 [10.21.64.118]) by mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/SSF) with ESMTP id h42LiJov005882; Fri, 2 May 2003 14:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cgd@localhost) by dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com ( 8.9.1/SJ8.9.1) id OAA22358; Fri, 2 May 2003 14:44:19 -0700 (PDT) To: "Gerald Pfeifer" cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [patch] References: From: cgd@broadcom.com Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 21:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: "Gerald Pfeifer"'s message of "Fri, 2 May 2003 08:23:00 +0200 (CEST)" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12AC3A7340285-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 At Fri, 2 May 2003 08:23:00 +0200 (CEST), Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Would you mind submitting an updated > version of your patch so that the GCC Makefile/configury maintainers > can have a look? It's below. And this time i've sent it to the right place. (my original msg wasn't going to include a patch, and i forgot to change gcc -> gcc-patches when i added the patch. 8-) I don't have autogen, so i just applied the same patch to makefile.in, and tested the result w/ texinfo 4.0 to build mipsisa64-elf. I've not tested this w/ a 'good' version of texinfo / makeinfo. If approved, I'd appreciate it if somebody else would apply this (since i'd rather have them actually regenerate Makefile.in than have me hack it. 8-) cgd -- 2003-05-02 Chris Demetriou * Makefile.tpl: Require "makeinfo" from texinfo 4.2 or later. * Makefile.in: Regenerate. Index: Makefile.tpl =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v retrieving revision 1.44 diff -u -p -r1.44 Makefile.tpl --- Makefile.tpl 28 Apr 2003 02:23:46 -0000 1.44 +++ Makefile.tpl 2 May 2003 21:10:25 -0000 @@ -194,13 +194,13 @@ M4 = `if [ -f $$r/m4/m4 ] ; \ then echo $$r/m4/m4 ; \ else echo ${DEFAULT_M4} ; fi` -# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4 or +# For an installed makeinfo, we require it to be from texinfo 4.2 or # higher, else we use the "missing" dummy. MAKEINFO=@MAKEINFO@ USUAL_MAKEINFO = `if [ -f $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ] ; \ then echo $$r/texinfo/makeinfo/makeinfo ; \ else if (makeinfo --version \ - | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|[4-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \ + | egrep 'texinfo[^0-9]*([1-3][0-9]|4\.[2-9]|[5-9])') >/dev/null 2>&1; \ then echo makeinfo; else echo $$s/missing makeinfo; fi; fi` # This just becomes part of the MAKEINFO definition passed down to