* parallel builds failing in bfd
@ 2003-05-28 22:01 David Carlton
2003-05-28 22:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Carlton @ 2003-05-28 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb; +Cc: binutils
Every once in a while, when I do a parallel build from the top level,
I get a failure that stems from bfd.h being built incorrectly. Do
other people run into this problem? I'm not at all familiar with
bfd's Makefile.in, so I don't know offhand what might be causing this
problem.
David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: parallel builds failing in bfd
2003-05-28 22:01 parallel builds failing in bfd David Carlton
@ 2003-05-28 22:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-28 22:51 ` Nicholas Wourms
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-05-28 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Carlton; +Cc: gdb, binutils
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:01:48PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> Every once in a while, when I do a parallel build from the top level,
> I get a failure that stems from bfd.h being built incorrectly. Do
> other people run into this problem? I'm not at all familiar with
> bfd's Makefile.in, so I don't know offhand what might be causing this
> problem.
It's an autoconf 2.13 bug unfortunately. It will be fixed after the
2.5x transition, which is starting to gain a little momentum now.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: parallel builds failing in bfd
2003-05-28 22:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2003-05-28 22:51 ` Nicholas Wourms
2003-05-28 23:59 ` DJ Delorie
2003-05-29 13:51 ` parallel builds failing in bfd H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Wourms @ 2003-05-28 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb, binutils
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:01:48PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
>
>>Every once in a while, when I do a parallel build from the top level,
>>I get a failure that stems from bfd.h being built incorrectly. Do
>>other people run into this problem? I'm not at all familiar with
>>bfd's Makefile.in, so I don't know offhand what might be causing this
>>problem.
>
>
> It's an autoconf 2.13 bug unfortunately. It will be fixed after the
> 2.5x transition, which is starting to gain a little momentum now.
>
BTW, are there any plans to transition to Automake-1.7.X &
Libtool-1.5.X, now that they have stabilized? It sure would be nice to
finally have a consolidated, streamlined build without all this leftover
Cygnus tree building crap. Yes, I dare say to ditch the current cruft
which is polluting Makefile.in's. There should be no reason why the
entire configury can't happen in one shot. Yes, I am aware that it must
support mixed trees, which is why one would put conditional guards
around subproject macros, running them only iff said subproject
directory is present in the source tree. It would save time and, for
some, resources [since repeatedly calling the Autom4te/Automake perl
functions (when checking for autoheader, etc.) tends to hog resources].
Not to mention the fact that {in-tree,parallel,distcc} building is
*much* easier to implement and less prone to break with the latest
versions of these tools. The biggest advantage, by far, would be to
bring subproject Makefile templates inline with some sort of general
standard, which is generally enforced by the current Automake/Autoconf
macros (whereas previous versions of autoconf/automake were rather lax).
Just my $0.02... Feel free to disagree :-)
Cheers,
Nicholas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: parallel builds failing in bfd
2003-05-28 22:51 ` Nicholas Wourms
@ 2003-05-28 23:59 ` DJ Delorie
2003-05-29 20:37 ` amodra
2003-05-29 13:51 ` parallel builds failing in bfd H. J. Lu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2003-05-28 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nwourms; +Cc: gdb, binutils
> BTW, are there any plans to transition to Automake-1.7.X &
> Libtool-1.5.X, now that they have stabilized? It sure would be nice
> to finally have a consolidated, streamlined build without all this
> leftover Cygnus tree building crap. Yes, I dare say to ditch the
> current cruft which is polluting Makefile.in's.
Are you willing to do the work? We got the toplevel files
autoconfiscated only due to a tremendous amount of volunteer time (by
Nate), and any further work is probably also going to have to wait for
someone to volunteers to do it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: parallel builds failing in bfd
2003-05-28 22:51 ` Nicholas Wourms
2003-05-28 23:59 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2003-05-29 13:51 ` H. J. Lu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2003-05-29 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicholas Wourms; +Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz, gdb, binutils
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 06:48:32PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:01:48PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> >
> >>Every once in a while, when I do a parallel build from the top level,
> >>I get a failure that stems from bfd.h being built incorrectly. Do
> >>other people run into this problem? I'm not at all familiar with
> >>bfd's Makefile.in, so I don't know offhand what might be causing this
> >>problem.
> >
> >
> > It's an autoconf 2.13 bug unfortunately. It will be fixed after the
> > 2.5x transition, which is starting to gain a little momentum now.
> >
>
> BTW, are there any plans to transition to Automake-1.7.X &
> Libtool-1.5.X, now that they have stabilized? It sure would be nice to
FYI, the current binutils/gdb tree doesn't work with
# make install DESTDIR=foo
when shared library is enabled due to the libtool bug. I put a kludge
in my Linux binutils. I hope it gets fixed soon.
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: parallel builds failing in bfd
2003-05-28 23:59 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2003-05-29 20:37 ` amodra
2003-05-30 5:37 ` unsubsribe Gitesh Kulkarni
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: amodra @ 2003-05-29 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: nwourms, gdb, binutils
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 07:59:05PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Nate), and any further work is probably also going to have to wait for
> someone to volunteers to do it.
Various people have volunteered to do the work in the past, eg. see
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-01/msg00143.html
It's more a matter of having _maintainers_ volunteer the time to
review and/or be willing to risk committing a patch that will likely
have some initial faults.
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* unsubsribe
2003-05-29 20:37 ` amodra
@ 2003-05-30 5:37 ` Gitesh Kulkarni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Gitesh Kulkarni @ 2003-05-30 5:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
unsubsribe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-30 5:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-28 22:01 parallel builds failing in bfd David Carlton
2003-05-28 22:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-28 22:51 ` Nicholas Wourms
2003-05-28 23:59 ` DJ Delorie
2003-05-29 20:37 ` amodra
2003-05-30 5:37 ` unsubsribe Gitesh Kulkarni
2003-05-29 13:51 ` parallel builds failing in bfd H. J. Lu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).