From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22068 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2012 11:35:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 19813 invoked by uid 48); 12 Dec 2012 11:35:08 -0000 From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ada/55243] STAMP variable is not defined in t-avr Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:35:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: ada X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg01237.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243 --- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-12 11:35:07 UTC --- > What I don't understand is what is bad with Rolf's proposal of defining STAMP? We simply don't need to stamp anything for the gnattools. > Stamping is not that unusual in the build process. Up to now it was not > needed, but is it that critical to set STAMP like proposed above? Well, building the gnattools works flawlessly for all targets except for AVR, because of a very questionable kludge. So it makes sense to fix the kludge.