From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6234 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 17:55:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6190 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 17:55:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 17:55:54 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h49HtsH05722; Fri, 9 May 2003 13:55:54 -0400 Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h49HtsI04312; Fri, 9 May 2003 13:55:54 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222]) by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h49HtrZ00961; Fri, 9 May 2003 13:55:53 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h49Htqc21246; Fri, 9 May 2003 13:55:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 17:55:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200305091755.h49Htqc21246@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: dhazeghi@yahoo.com CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20EC888E-81F7-11D7-9B47-000393681B36@yahoo.com> (message from Dara Hazeghi on Fri, 9 May 2003 01:20:43 -0700) Subject: Re: srcdir == objdir build issues [SC take note] References: <20EC888E-81F7-11D7-9B47-000393681B36@yahoo.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 > there seems to be a fair number of people who like to build gcc with a > straight ./configure && make && make install. Unfortunately, this > doesn't seem to work a fair bit of the time, as is seen by the 10-20 > bug reports we have about it in GNATS. The documentation > (http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html) claims it _should_ work but > is not tested much. So my question is do we in fact support this, and > is it something which will receive regular testing? Few gcc developers seem to care about building in anything other than some unrelated directory. I keep noting that every other source package besides gcc is build with "./configure; make" and we'd only be surprising the users if we don't allow it. I do a build-in-srcdir build every night, but often other problems prevent it from working, so it's hard to keep on top of. So here's an idea. Let's ask the Steering Committee what we should support. Whatever we choose to not support, I'll modify configure to detect and just plain fail, so there will be no doubts about the situation any more. SC - here are the options... [ ] /some/dir/src/configure (not matching any of the below) [ ] ../src/configure [ ] ../configure [ ] ./configure For those options the SC votes to support, we should expect anyone submitting build-related changes to actually test those configurations, in a worst-case scenario (most likely, a canadian cross to a multilib target). I've added binutils and gdb to this list, since the obvious place to add these tests would be in the toplevel build files, so we should get their opinion too - if they want to support things gcc doesn't, we'll put the tests in gcc's configure.