On 11/07/13 06:11, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:32:11 +0000, "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji.v.i...@intel.com>
wrote:
* Makefile.def: Add libcilkrts to target_modules. Make libcilkrts
depend on libstdc++ and libgcc.
[...]
* Makefile.in: Added libcilkrts related fields to support building it.
How did you modify the latter file? I noticed it is no longer in sync
with the former: if I regenerate it (»autogen Makefile.def«), then there
are differences. This is easily fixed, of course, but as everyone now
has been using the "out-of-sync" Makefile.in, I wonder whether the
regeneration qualifies as obvious to commit, or rather something in
Makefile.def needs to be changed to make it match the Makefile.in as it
has been checked in in r204173?
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
I think we should consider regeneration as an obvious change. If that
breaks something, then it's the original author who introduced the
change without a corresponding regenerate that needs to fix their code.
Just to be explicit, this is fine for the trunk.
Jeff
