Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/04/2012 03:17 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard: >> the two setups described above are both already supported by the current >> automake implementation (but the last one is

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: > > Stefano> On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I > Stefano> couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence > Stefano> the location of the generated info files -- and it t

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/04/2012 12:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > I suspect there are better, cleaner, ways to accomplish the underlying > goal, but I suppose the gcc maintainers don't want to spend the time > fiddling around with their build infrastructure for such a minor > issue... Why speculate? I haven't seen

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: >>> OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info' >> >> ... >>> it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally) >>> "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you. >>

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard: > the two setups described above are both already supported by the current > automake implementation (but the last one is not encouraged, even though > it makes perfect sense i

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Pedro Alves writes: >> OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info' > > ... >> it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally) >> "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you. > ... >> *undocumented* option '!hack!info-in-buildd

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/03/2012 09:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info' ... > it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally) > "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you. ... > *undocumented* option '

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Stefano Lattarini writes: > But since I'm not yet ready to publish this new feature, I intend to make > it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally) > "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you. Sure, works for me. Thanks. Ian

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: Stefano> On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I Stefano> couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence Stefano> the location of the generated info files -- and it turned out Stefano> it didn't! Despite what was doc

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/03/2012 10:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info' > files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change > required by automake to allow this is very small and safe, I'm ready to do > it (see attach

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/03/2012 10:05 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 04/03/2012 10:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info' >> files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change >> required by automake to allow this is

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info' files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change required by automake to allow this is very small and safe, I'm ready to do it (see attached patch, which I will push in a couple of days to 'maste

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Quoting Stefano Lattarini : By looking at the 'handle_texinfo_helper' function in the automake script, I suspect adding a new Automake option 'info-in-builddir' (say) and an handful of lines to the automake script might be enough to give you an easy way to force the '.info' files to be generated

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hi Stefano, Stefano Lattarini wrote: On 04/02/2012 10:19 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: Stefano> It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is Stefano> tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages Stefano> anyway). The baseline is: if

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Stefano Lattarini writes: >> Anyway the real use in the src tree is different, IIUC. >> Info files are built in the build tree by developers, but put in the >> source tree for distribution. >> > In such a setup, what is the issue with having the '.info' files built > in the srcdir? It's not like

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/02/2012 10:12 PM, Roumen Petrov wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> [SNIP] >> It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is tested in the >> testsuite, and required by other packages anyway). The baseline is: if >> you don't want your '.info' files to be distri

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/02/2012 10:19 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: > > Stefano> It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is > Stefano> tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages > Stefano> anyway). The baseline is: if you don't want your '.info' f

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: Stefano> It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is Stefano> tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages Stefano> anyway). The baseline is: if you don't want your '.info' files Stefano> to be distributed, then it should be

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hi Stefano, Stefano Lattarini wrote: [SNIP] It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages anyway). The baseline is: if you don't want your '.info' files to be distributed, then it should be easily possible to have them built i

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/02/2012 09:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: > > Stefano> Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are > Stefano> talking about here? > > I was under the impression that it would no longer be possible to build > info files in the buil

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: Stefano> Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are Stefano> talking about here? I was under the impression that it would no longer be possible to build info files in the build tree. But, I see that, according to the Automake man

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: Stefano> True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point Stefano> of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two Stefano> big users are basically not making any real use of the 'cygnus' Stefano> option anymore. To quote my

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: Stefano> Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in Stefano> this regard: the two setups described above are both already Stefano> supported by the current automake implementation (but the last Stefano> one is not encouraged, even tho

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/02/2012 05:16 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: > > Stefano> True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point > Stefano> of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two > Stefano> big users are basically not making any real use of

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes: > > Stefano> Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in > Stefano> this regard: the two setups described above are both already > Stefano> supported by the current automake implementation (bu

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 03/31/2012 01:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 03/28/2012 02:19 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Hi Joseph, thanks for the feedback. >> On 03/28/2012 01:24 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >>> >>> Is there better transition documentation somewhere? >>> >> Nope, but it would be a good idea to prepar

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 03/28/2012 02:19 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Joseph, thanks for the feedback. > On 03/28/2012 01:24 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> >> Is there better transition documentation somewhere? >> > Nope, but it would be a good idea to prepare it before starting to deprecate > the 'cygnus' option.

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hi Alfred. On 03/31/2012 11:08 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > - Have them distributed (automake's default). This means that >they will be build in the srcdir, not in the builddir: of >course, this only affects the maintainer, since for a user that >builds the package f

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

- Have them distributed (automake's default). This means that they will be build in the srcdir, not in the builddir: of course, this only affects the maintainer, since for a user that builds the package from a tarball those files should *not* be rebuilt, hence ther

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hi Ian, Joseph, and sorry for the delay. On 03/29/2012 01:43 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Stefano Lattarini writes: > >>> (I think avoiding info documentation being built in the source directory, >>> so that builds could use a non-writable source directory, may have been >>> one part). >>> >> T

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Stefano Lattarini writes: >> (I think avoiding info documentation being built in the source directory, >> so that builds could use a non-writable source directory, may have been >> one part). >> > There is probably some hack to obtain this effect (it's tested in the > testsuite > somewhere), but

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 03/28/2012 02:29 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> - texinfo.tex is not required if a Texinfo source file is specified. The >> assumption is that the file will be supplied, but in a place that >> Automake cannot find. This assumption is an

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > - texinfo.tex is not required if a Texinfo source file is specified. The > assumption is that the file will be supplied, but in a place that > Automake cannot find. This assumption is an artifact of how Cygnus > packages are typically b

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hi Joseph, thanks for the feedback. On 03/28/2012 01:24 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> But this option is going to be deprecated in Automake 1.12.1 and removed in >> Automake 1.13: >> >> > > T

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > But this option is going to be deprecated in Automake 1.12.1 and removed in > Automake 1.13: > > That page isn't very helpful since it doesn't give the non-deprecated way to achieve each part

Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hello. I see that binutils, GCC and GDB still use the Automake's 'cygnus' option in some of their makefiles: $ grep_cygnus() { > grep -r 'cygnus' . \ >| perl -ne '/(^|[^@])cygnus($|(:!\.com\b))/ and print' \ >| grep -v '^[^:]*/Makefile\.in:'; \ > } $ (cd ~/src/binutils && g