Re: [PATCH libffi 1/4] Use a template to pass $CC and $CXX to DejaGNU

[Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 23:55 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Use an Autoconf template rather an inline piece of scriptery to set 
> DejaGNU's $CC_FOR_TARGET and $CXX_FOR_TARGET variables from $CC and $CXX 
> respectively, making it easier to maintain and making it take advantage 
> of Automake's dependency and rule generation.  Relocate the generated 
> `local.exp' file to within testsuite/ so as to make its regeneration 
> rule to actually work, i.e. (in testsuite/Makefile.in):
> 
> EXTRA_DEJAGNU_SITE_CONFIG = local.exp
> site.exp: Makefile $(EXTRA_DEJAGNU_SITE_CONFIG)
> 	[...]
> local.exp: $(top_builddir)/config.status $(srcdir)/local.exp.in
> 	cd $(top_builddir) && $(SHELL) ./config.status $(subdir)/$@
> 
> It wouldn't work if the regeneration rule was placed in the top-level 
> Makefile.in, which is what Automake would faithfully do if `local.exp' 
> stayed in the top level directory.
> ---
> Hi,
> 
>  I think having individual AC_CONFIG_FILES macro invocations for each 
> output file or group of files would make this change (and code itself) 
> more readable, however it hasn't been done before and I decided not to 
> change the style on this occasion.  It may make sense as a follow-up 
> clean-up.
> 
>   Maciej
> ---
>  Makefile.am            |    3 ---
>  configure.ac           |    7 +------
>  testsuite/Makefile.am  |    2 +-
>  testsuite/local.exp.in |    2 ++
>  4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
So from the cover letter I got the impression this series was supposed to be
pulling down some bits from upstream libffi into gcc's copy.  But AFAICT that's
not the case.

I don't see anything inherently wrong here.  It was just a bit confusing.  It's
actually follow-on patches where you're cherry picking from the upstream libffi
repository.

OK for the trunk.
jeff
>