From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14256 invoked by alias); 8 May 2007 01:01:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 14245 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2007 01:01:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 May 2007 01:01:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 23481 invoked from network); 8 May 2007 01:01:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 May 2007 01:01:23 -0000 To: Andreas Schwab Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Make sure symbol version script is writeable References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 01:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Tue, 08 May 2007 00:22:46 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-05/txt/msg00495.txt.bz2 Andreas Schwab writes: > Jim Blandy writes: > >> If the source tree has been made read-only, the libstdc++-v3 build >> dies trying to construct src/libstdc++-symbols.ver. >> >> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: >> 2007-05-07 Jim Blandy >> >> * libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.am (libstdc++-symbol.ver): Make >> sure the build tree copy of libstdc++-symbol.ver is writeable. >> * libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.in: Regenerated. >> >> Index: libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.am >> =================================================================== >> --- libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.am (revision 124502) >> +++ libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.am (working copy) >> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ >> libstdc++-symbols.ver: ${glibcxx_srcdir}/$(SYMVER_FILE) \ >> $(port_specific_symbol_files) >> cp ${glibcxx_srcdir}/$(SYMVER_FILE) ./libstdc++-symbols.ver >> + chmod +w ./libstdc++-symbol.ver > > You surely mean `symbols' here? Yes, I certainly do. Thanks for the close reading. (This is what I get for working with three branches at once, none of whose patches apply cleanly to the others.)