X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
From: "Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To: "'Cygwin'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: gcc build problem - make vpath
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:36:06 +0100
Message-ID: <014f01c6e733$ef2e11c0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <4522D0A1.40805@eagercon.com>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 03 October 2006 22:06, Michael Eager wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:

> I looked for make-3.80.  I didn't find it in a cygwin repo,
> but there was a link on mozilla.org to binaries.  I installed
> these binaries for make-3.80.
> 
> Building gcc using the mozilla version of make-3.80 fails
> as previously described.  I assumed that this version of
> make was the same as the one which I previously installed.
> Apparently, it isn't or there is some other incompatibility.

  In general, if you find a bug in a package you got from mozilla.org (or
indeed anywhere except an official cygwin mirror site), you should in the
first place tell them about it, not us.  However, it does seem that the one on
mozilla.org is the exact same version as you previously had installed:

421acbc7a0605a117afb126e46d0f632 *make-3.80-1.tar.bz2
421acbc7a0605a117afb126e46d0f632
*cygwin.src/http%3a%2f%2fcygwin.cam.artimi.com%2fcygwin/release/make/make-3.80
-1.tar.bz2

is the result I got for the moz.org one and for the old copy lying around in
my local package dir.  So something else must have gone wrong, because that's
the exact same one that works for me to build gcc.

  You mentioned '%' signs in environment variables and VPATH.  Bash and make
use a '$' to indicate a variable, and make uses '%' to indicate a
pattern-matching rule.  You're always going to give make a hard time, because
if it sees

%.c%.o: 
	$(CC) ... blah ...

how is it going to know whether you're specifying a pattern matching rule for
generating any .o file from any .c file, or whether the DOS environment var
%.c% perhaps exists and contains the name of some <sourcefile> and this rule
is how to generate <sourcefile>.o ?

  How did you actually write the configure and make command lines when it went
wrong?  Did you configure with one version of make and then try and build it
with the other?

> The answer to my last question seems to be yes.  (Thanks
> Matthew!)  I'll look into using William Hoffman's patched
> version of make-3.81.

  This should do the job.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/