Patchwork fix NM and AR assignment when using in-tree binutils

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Jan Beulich
Date June 10, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
Message ID <4C10B1E70200007800005EB1@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/55161/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Jan Beulich - June 10, 2010, 7:35 a.m.
gcc/
2010-06-10  Jan Beulich  <jbeulich@novell.com>

	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
	variables rather than invoking commands.
	* configure: Re-generate.
Paolo Bonzini - June 10, 2010, 8:39 a.m.
On 06/10/2010 09:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> gcc/
> 2010-06-10  Jan Beulich<jbeulich@novell.com>
>
> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
> 	variables rather than invoking commands.
> 	* configure: Re-generate.

Okay.

Paolo
Jan Beulich - June 10, 2010, noon
>>> On 10.06.10 at 10:39, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 09:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> gcc/
>> 2010-06-10  Jan Beulich<jbeulich@novell.com>
>>
>> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
>> 	variables rather than invoking commands.
>> 	* configure: Re-generate.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Paolo

How about the 4.5 tree?

Jan
Paolo Bonzini - June 10, 2010, 12:24 p.m.
On 06/10/2010 02:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 10.06.10 at 10:39, Paolo Bonzini<bonzini@gnu.org>  wrote:
>> On 06/10/2010 09:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> gcc/
>>> 2010-06-10  Jan Beulich<jbeulich@novell.com>
>>>
>>> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
>>> 	variables rather than invoking commands.
>>> 	* configure: Re-generate.
>>
>> Okay.
>
> How about the 4.5 tree?

If it's a regression (fails to build from "../configure && make" while 
4.4 succeeded), that's also okay.

Paolo
Jan Beulich - June 10, 2010, 12:34 p.m.
>>> On 10.06.10 at 14:24, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 02:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 10.06.10 at 10:39, Paolo Bonzini<bonzini@gnu.org>  wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2010 09:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> gcc/
>>>> 2010-06-10  Jan Beulich<jbeulich@novell.com>
>>>>
>>>> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
>>>> 	variables rather than invoking commands.
>>>> 	* configure: Re-generate.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>
>> How about the 4.5 tree?
> 
> If it's a regression (fails to build from "../configure && make" while 
> 4.4 succeeded), that's also okay.

No, it has been that way for longer than 4.4 existed - I see the issue
in 4.0.3 too, but not in 3.4.4 (albeit that tree has similar issues, just
with different programs: makeinfo, flex, and bison).

jan
Paolo Bonzini - June 10, 2010, 12:48 p.m.
On 06/10/2010 02:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 10.06.10 at 14:24, Paolo Bonzini<bonzini@gnu.org>  wrote:
>> On 06/10/2010 02:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 10.06.10 at 10:39, Paolo Bonzini<bonzini@gnu.org>   wrote:
>>>> On 06/10/2010 09:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> gcc/
>>>>> 2010-06-10  Jan Beulich<jbeulich@novell.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
>>>>> 	variables rather than invoking commands.
>>>>> 	* configure: Re-generate.
>>>>
>>>> Okay.
>>>
>>> How about the 4.5 tree?
>>
>> If it's a regression (fails to build from "../configure&&  make" while
>> 4.4 succeeded), that's also okay.
>
> No, it has been that way for longer than 4.4 existed - I see the issue
> in 4.0.3 too, but not in 3.4.4 (albeit that tree has similar issues, just
> with different programs: makeinfo, flex, and bison).

makeinfo, flex and bison are not required for a release build, are they? 
  It's safe enough anyway, go ahead.

Paolo
Alexandre Oliva - June 10, 2010, 5:12 p.m.
On Jun 10, 2010, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
> 	variables rather than invoking commands.

Is this just cosmetical, or are these variables ever expanded and evaled
in a shell, rather than in Makefiles?
Ralf Wildenhues - June 10, 2010, 5:33 p.m.
* Alexandre Oliva wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 07:12:46PM CEST:
> On Jun 10, 2010, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> 
> > 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
> > 	variables rather than invoking commands.
> 
> Is this just cosmetical, or are these variables ever expanded and evaled
> in a shell, rather than in Makefiles?

Is this http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37304 ?

Cheers,
Ralf
Paolo Bonzini - June 10, 2010, 5:47 p.m.
On 06/10/2010 07:33 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 07:12:46PM CEST:
>> On Jun 10, 2010, "Jan Beulich"<JBeulich@novell.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
>>> 	variables rather than invoking commands.
>>
>> Is this just cosmetical, or are these variables ever expanded and evaled
>> in a shell, rather than in Makefiles?
>
> Is this http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37304 ?

Yes.  Please mention it when committing.  Also, the PR clearly says it's 
okay for release branches too.

Paolo
Jan Beulich - June 11, 2010, 7:17 a.m.
>>> On 10.06.10 at 19:47, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 07:33 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Alexandre Oliva wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 07:12:46PM CEST:
>>> On Jun 10, 2010, "Jan Beulich"<JBeulich@novell.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> 	* configure.ac: Replace $() with ${} when intending to expand
>>>> 	variables rather than invoking commands.
>>>
>>> Is this just cosmetical, or are these variables ever expanded and evaled
>>> in a shell, rather than in Makefiles?
>>
>> Is this http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37304 ?
> 
> Yes.  Please mention it when committing.  Also, the PR clearly says it's 
> okay for release branches too.

I added the PR reference to the ChangeLog entries on trunk and 4.5.

Jan

Patch

--- a/gcc/configure.ac
+++ b/gcc/configure.ac
@@ -913,7 +918,7 @@  AC_CHECK_PROGS([BISON], bison, [$MISSING
 # NM
 if test x${build} = x${host} && test -f $srcdir/../binutils/nm.c \
   && test -d ../binutils ; then
-  NM='$(objdir)/../binutils/nm-new'
+  NM='${objdir}/../binutils/nm-new'
 else
   AC_CHECK_PROG(NM, nm, nm, ${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/sh} ${srcdir}/../missing nm)
 fi
@@ -921,7 +926,7 @@  fi
 # AR
 if test x${build} = x${host} && test -f $srcdir/../binutils/ar.c \
   && test -d ../binutils ; then
-  AR='$(objdir)/../binutils/ar'
+  AR='${objdir}/../binutils/ar'
 else
   AC_CHECK_PROG(AR, ar, ar, ${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/sh} ${srcdir}/../missing ar)
 fi