From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12613 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2013 17:16:01 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 12599 invoked by uid 89); 7 Nov 2013 17:16:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:15:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA7HFmnM014341 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:15:49 -0500 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-132.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.132]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA7HFlND016768; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:15:48 -0500 Message-ID: <527BCAC3.90508@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:32:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Schwinge , "Iyer, Balaji V" CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Cilk Library References: <525460A9.2040409@redhat.com> <87a9hg9x1a.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <87a9hg9x1a.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00793.txt.bz2 On 11/07/13 06:11, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:32:11 +0000, "Iyer, Balaji V" wrote: >> * Makefile.def: Add libcilkrts to target_modules. Make libcilkrts >> depend on libstdc++ and libgcc. >> [...] >> * Makefile.in: Added libcilkrts related fields to support building it. > > How did you modify the latter file? I noticed it is no longer in sync > with the former: if I regenerate it (»autogen Makefile.def«), then there > are differences. This is easily fixed, of course, but as everyone now > has been using the "out-of-sync" Makefile.in, I wonder whether the > regeneration qualifies as obvious to commit, or rather something in > Makefile.def needs to be changed to make it match the Makefile.in as it > has been checked in in r204173? > > * Makefile.in: Regenerate. I think we should consider regeneration as an obvious change. If that breaks something, then it's the original author who introduced the change without a corresponding regenerate that needs to fix their code. Just to be explicit, this is fine for the trunk. Jeff