Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3F193398.68AC8A99@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:03:36 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 & LIBC - build process change (attempt #2)
References: <000001c34d98$91956280$0101a8c0 AT acp42g>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Andrew Cottrell wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > Since you've generated gpp.opt, why not use it? How about:
> >
> > XNOPGGPP = $(CROSS_GCC) $(shell sed -f $(TOP)/../noprof.sed
> > $(TOP)/../gpp.opt) -I. -I- -isystem $(TOP)/../../include $(CFLAGS)
> I have done this.
> 
> > Incidentally, what causes gpp.opt to be built? Does the
> > default rule built it? I couldn't see anything in the patch,
> > to force it to be built.
> I added the following rule to built it:-
> 
> *************** $(HOSTBIN)/%.exe : %
> *** 155,160 ****
> --- 160,168 ----
>   all :: $(OBJS) $(EXTRA_OBJS) $(EXTRA_FILES)
>         $(NOP)
> 
> + $(TOP)/../gpp.opt : $(TOP)/../gcc.opt
> +       sed -f $(TOP)/../gpp_opt.sed $< > $@
> +
>   ifneq ($(MAKEFILE_LIB),1)
>   all :: makefile.oh
>   makefile.oh : makefile

I saw that, but what depends on gpp.opt? AFAICT nothing would cause it to be
built, when you start with a fresh tree. Maybe you need a line like:

$(OBJS): $(TOP)/../gpp.opt

Or does make auto-detect that it needs to build $(TOP)/../gpp.opt?

Maybe I'm missing something.

> I spotted a problem with the patch and I don't know how to get arround it
> with my limited make knowledge. The problem is that make clean does not
> remove gpp.opt . I have tried the following:-
>         clean ::
>         -$(MISC) rm *.o *.d *.i makefile.oh gpp.opt
> 
> and also the following, but this gives and error
>         clean ::
>         rm gpp.opt
>         -$(MISC) rm *.o *.d *.i makefile.oh
> 
> Any ideas on this one?

I don't understand. I wonder why the first one didn't work.

As to the second one: we can't require 'rm'. That's the point of the utility
$(MISC) - to avoid a dependency on fileutils/coreutils.

Sorry, I know that's not really much help.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]