From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19901 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2012 22:54:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 19756 invoked by uid 48); 17 Dec 2012 22:53:45 -0000 From: "gjl at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/55243] STAMP variable is not defined in t-avr Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:54:00 -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: gjl 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/msg01699.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243 --- Comment #29 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-17 22:53:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) >> 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, That argument doues not count, IMO. 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. 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. Throwing out the need of STAMP works, but it does not answer the question why ada does things it does not expect at a stage it does not expect. (In reply to comment #26) >> There are other backends like x86 and mips that use STAMP in their t-snip, so >> I wonder how you can conclude that ada does not include code that might >> require STAMP? > >I didn't say that though, rather that we don't need STAMP for the gnattools. 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? BTW, avr/t-multilib cannot be generated from scratch in the build directory because it is included in Makefile. The dependencies in gcc_update:files_and_dependencies() look reasonable.