From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11800 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2011 17:17:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 11785 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2011 17:17:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:17:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA2HHUY2007894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:17:30 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-23.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.23]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA2HHS9k024579; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:17:29 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB17B28.8060704@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:18:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110928 Fedora/3.1.15-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Stump CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: building binutils from same directory as gcc References: <4EAFD7AC.4000806@redhat.com> <4EB11071.5050203@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On 11/02/2011 05:11 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:42 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 11/01/2011 04:51 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >>> On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>> On 10/30/2011 01:51 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>>> Why not just declare >>>>> that building from the same directory is not support and have one >>>>> simple set of instructions that always works, as opposed to "this >>>>> ought to work with snapshots but not with direct checkouts"? >>>> >>>> That's right. Is there ever any advantage to building in-srcdir? >>> >>> Yes. You can do configure && make && make install. >> >> Huh? > > Ah, yes, yet another advantage, one can also do: > > ./configure && make && make install Of course. That's what "building in-srcdir" means. > :-) I do realize that you may not choose to value the feature, but > that doesn't mean that everyone has the same valuation you have. Sure, but that doesn't answer the question, which was "is there ever any advantage to building in-srcdir?" The answer "Yes: one can build in srcdir" doesn't quite do it! Andrew.