Message ID | 52A4DF45.7070703@gnu.org |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Bruce Korb wrote: > On 12/08/13 13:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > Lovely. Thank you very much! (Looks like nobody replied to this and it isn't committed.) > $ svn diff > Index: configure.ac > =================================================================== > --- configure.ac (revision 205790) > +++ configure.ac (working copy) > @@ -1319,10 +1319,17 @@ > # Used for setting $lt_cv_objdir > _LT_CHECK_OBJDIR > > -# Check for GMP, MPFR and MPC > +# Check for flex, GMP, MPFR and MPC > +[for p in flex > +do > + c=`command -v $p` > + test -x "$c" || \ > + ]AC_MSG_ERROR([the $p command is required to build GCC])[ > +done > + No, flex isn't "required to build GCC" as a hard and fast rule. It's not required for releases, just when building from a svn checkout (or really: when the flex-generated files are not in the source directory). You'd need some additional conditions. There might be the additional issue that any "lex" is expected to work too, not just "flex". brgds, H-P
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Bruce Korb wrote: >> On 12/08/13 13:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> > Lovely. Thank you very much! > > (Looks like nobody replied to this and it isn't committed.) > No, flex isn't "required to build GCC" as a hard and fast rule. > It's not required for releases, just when building from a svn > checkout (or really: when the flex-generated files are not in > the source directory). > > You'd need some additional conditions. There might be the > additional issue that any "lex" is expected to work too, not > just "flex". It isn't committed 'cuz nobody said, "Okay." I do wish either someone would say, "Okay." or come up with something that works. I went to the effort to figure out where things got off the rails and did something that worked for me. Just saying, "That won't work" without a workable alternative is a bit irritating. I do not know the difference between a checkout build and a "normal" configured build. My understanding was that generated files were to be part of the repo and that there was *not* a difference. If there is, then someone who understands the difference could maybe add some configure infrastructure to test the environment and decide if flex (or lex) was needed, rather than just say, "what you did won't work."
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Bruce Korb wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Bruce Korb wrote: > >> On 12/08/13 13:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >> > Lovely. Thank you very much! > > > > (Looks like nobody replied to this and it isn't committed.) > > > No, flex isn't "required to build GCC" as a hard and fast rule. > > It's not required for releases, just when building from a svn > > checkout (or really: when the flex-generated files are not in > > the source directory). > > > > You'd need some additional conditions. There might be the > > additional issue that any "lex" is expected to work too, not > > just "flex". > > It isn't committed 'cuz nobody said, "Okay." > I do wish either someone would say, "Okay." or come up with something > that works. > I went to the effort to figure out where things got off the rails and > did something that > worked for me. Just saying, "That won't work" without a workable alternative > is a bit irritating. There are surely plenty of opportunities around for irritatation! :) Dropped patches surely; I thought I was helpful there. Ungraceful errors from easily identifiable common gotchas definitely, so what you're trying to achieve is IMHO desirable. Patches hacking in something that just happened to work for someone too; I tried to stop that from happening. > I do not know the difference between a checkout build and a "normal" > configured build. There's a difference between builds from released tarballs and builds from svn co + contrib/gcc_update, yes. > My understanding was that generated files were to > be part of the repo and that there was *not* a difference. Nope, fewer generated files in the repo. (Not all of them, not none of them.) > If there is, > then someone who understands the difference could maybe add some > configure infrastructure to test the environment and decide if flex (or lex) > was needed, rather than just say, "what you did won't work." See is_release in that same configure.ac, that might be the only additional condition that's needed. Happy Hacking. brgds, H-P
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes: > See is_release in that same configure.ac, that might be the only > additional condition that's needed. is_release only distinguishes a release from a snapshot, but does not say anything whether its a tarball or a VC checkout (ie. is_release=yes is also possible in a VC checkout). Andreas.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes: > > > See is_release in that same configure.ac, that might be the only > > additional condition that's needed. > > is_release only distinguishes a release from a snapshot, but does not > say anything whether its a tarball or a VC checkout (ie. is_release=yes > is also possible in a VC checkout). That difference seems unimportant, at least lesser than a simple means to avoid the missing-flex gotcha and the we-wont-need-it gotcha. But anyhoo, I'll leave it to you to provide a better alternative. brgds, H-P
Index: configure.ac =================================================================== --- configure.ac (revision 205790) +++ configure.ac (working copy) @@ -1319,10 +1319,17 @@ # Used for setting $lt_cv_objdir _LT_CHECK_OBJDIR -# Check for GMP, MPFR and MPC +# Check for flex, GMP, MPFR and MPC +[for p in flex +do + c=`command -v $p` + test -x "$c" || \ + ]AC_MSG_ERROR([the $p command is required to build GCC])[ +done + gmplibs="-lmpc -lmpfr -lgmp" gmpinc= -have_gmp=no +have_gmp=no] # Specify a location for mpc # check for this first so it ends up on the link line before mpfr.
On 12/08/13 13:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Lovely. Thank you very much! $ svn diff