From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26768 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2009 00:16:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 26758 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2009 00:16:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx20.gnu.org (HELO mx20.gnu.org) (199.232.41.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:16:00 +0000 Received: from [65.74.133.4] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mt9Kw-0006l5-5y for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:15:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 12951 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2009 00:15:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 1 Oct 2009 00:15:56 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mt9Kt-00040w-Ff; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:15:55 +0000 Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:16:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Ian Lance Taylor cc: Paul Edwards , Richard Henderson , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: i370 port - constructing compile script In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <200909251516.n8PFGPYn014618@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <4F1842D6879348899E3A1999066969F5@Paullaptop> <4AC39435.8010902@redhat.com> <36D486ECFFC04FBD8318DFDD333FD206@Paullaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-detected-operating-system: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "Paul Edwards" writes: > > > 2. If the normal way to do things is to parse the make -n output > > with perl etc, that's fine, I'll do it that way. I was just wondering > > if the proper way was to incorporate the logic into a Makefile > > rule and get that rule repeatedly executed rather than just > > having a simple "echo". It seems to me that having a generic > > rule to execute an external script would be neater??? > > I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, but I do know that it > wouldn't make sense for us to change the gcc Makefile to use a rule > which executes an external script. > > The "normal way to do things" is to use GNU make. I think you are the > first person trying to build gcc without it. Not the first - BSDs have been known to import GCC sources into their repositories and write their own build system using BSD make. No doubt this is a lot of work that needs repeating for each new version imported - that's the price you pay if you don't want to use the normal GCC build system. (And GCC didn't always require GNU make - but the BSDs replacing the build system are a much closer analogy here than ordinary builds of old versions with other make implementations before GNU make was required.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com