From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9890 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2012 21:45:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 8791 invoked by uid 48); 20 Dec 2012 21:45:14 -0000 From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/55243] STAMP variable is not defined in t-avr Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:45:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target 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/msg02056.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243 --- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou 2012-12-20 21:45:11 UTC --- > Almost nothing in GCC was added without precedent: Features were added because > backend X needed them or frontend Y needed them. To reject an extension just > because only one target needs it, is not an convincing argument. I totally disagree of course. You must first try to fit in the existing design and, only when that fails, you're allowed to propose extensions. > It's still not known why the ada / gnat stuff rebuilds stuff already there a > sectons time and at a stage ada / gnat don't expect such a build. Indeed. > If I understand correctly, someone familiar with the gnat build machiney and > philosophy might want to find out why it performs a mistimed rebuild of things > that are elready supposed to be there? Yes, that's the crux of the matter.