From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id CA53C385841A; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:05:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CA53C385841A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710288339;
	bh=NPMfe1uPxntjYAMgoD69O7CvgZcD0aErhotU43dau6Q=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Ua9mEty/eT+cIedKZbP0xPFce9xNFIF/4KH3+ULQOtlm3EkKdscGuUqgYIOC42yPf
	 atYHaE8buUdROxlMQ92gQp+xwc0bd/IyId37vQFF6oyxDwjHms8sDmRoqID1+0D4AR
	 7ZiSV1V6iNoYa7L7VmRY2uY1Waq009cJyoZkRADQ=
From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/106472] No rule to make target
 '../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la', needed by 'libgo.la'.
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:05:35 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106472-4-Pz2tlv5zJc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106472

--- Comment #35 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to =D0=94=D0=B8=D0=BB=D1=8F=D0=BD =D0=9F=D0=B0=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=83=
=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2 from comment #34)
> Created attachment 57662 [details]
> Proposed patch
>=20
> This fixes the problem.
>=20
> I do not understand the build system to say, that this is the best approa=
ch,
> so if there are questions I might or might not be able to answer them.
>=20
> I also do not know, if 2=C3=97`maybe-`  is necessary.

Please send this patch to the gcc-patches mailing list and cc the build sys=
tem
maintainers. I think the `maybe-` things are supposed to get generated in s=
ome
sort of way that would require digging into the whole autogen generation me=
thod
a bit more deeply, but I'm not too sure myself... maybe this ought to be a
`depend=3D` entry in Makefile.def instead?=