| Message ID | 4C10B1E70200007800005EB1@vpn.id2.novell.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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
>>> 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
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
>>> 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
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
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?
* 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
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
>>> 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 ${} when intending to expand >>>> variables rather than invoking commands. >>> >>> Is this just cosmetical, or are these variables ever expanded and evaled >>> in a shell, rather than in Makefiles? >> >> Is this http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37304 ? > > Yes. Please mention it when committing. Also, the PR clearly says it's > okay for release branches too. I added the PR reference to the ChangeLog entries on trunk and 4.5. Jan
--- a/gcc/configure.ac +++ b/gcc/configure.ac @@ -913,7 +918,7 @@ AC_CHECK_PROGS([BISON], bison, [$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
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.