From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32124 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2013 14:20:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32103 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2013 14:20:06 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:20:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6TEJtBf014917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:19:55 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-140.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.140]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6TEJqch014203; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:19:53 -0400 Message-ID: <51F67A08.2070709@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:20:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Korb CC: FX , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "prosfilaes@gmail.com" , "jwakely.gcc@gmail.com" Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file References: <51F66CA9.4040803@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 On 07/29/2013 02:55 PM, Bruce Korb wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> There should be a better diagnostic. > > If you remember, the start of this thread was: > >> Why is it that configure worked but stubs-32.h was not found? > > That is the correct thing to do. The reply, basically, was: > > It's too hard. It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important to get it right. We don't want a half-arsed patch." >>> But we know people are running into this issue and reporting it. >> Yes. But that on its own is not sufficient to change the default > > That's a pretty obnoxious comment. Oh dear. > I translate it as, "I don't care if people are having trouble. That's a mistranslation. It means that there are other criteria beyond some people having trouble. Such as, we really want multilibs to be built. > It is a nuisance to me to do that and anyone building GCC should > already know they need -devel for 32 bits." I guess > I can be obnoxious, too. But slightly more politely put: > >> No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to >> enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way >> through with an obscure error message. Real systems need features that >> aren't enabled by default sometimes. > > The fundamental issue, to me, is: What do you do when you cannot > proceed? > > I think you should detect the issue as *soon as practical* and then > *ALWAYS* emit a message that *TELLS THE USER WHAT TO DO*. Yes! Yes! Yes! Andrew.