On Fri, 8 May 2015, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > One example where there is an incompatibility is "missing": > > Formerly it had code that emulated the missing "flex" by > creating a dummy lex.yy.c from the hopefully installed > pre-compiled flex output file. But the version from the > trunk does nothing, which breaks all configure scripts > that used AM_PROG_LEX. I do assume that the > automake scripts just use a different way to achieve > the same goal, if flex is not installed.
It seems like a bug to me that "missing" changed its interface. However, since GCC doesn't use flex in any directory that uses, or is a subdirectory of a directory that uses, automake, clearly that change is of no relevance to the version of automake used in GCC. In any case, GCC release tarballs should always have timestamps in the right order for non-checked-in generated files, and contrib/gcc_update should always be used when checking out checked-in generated files to get the timestamps in the right order, so no supported case of building GCC should ever get as far as trying to use "missing" to regenerate something unless there are bugs in the makefiles, gcc_update etc. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
