On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:53:02PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:52 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> The last time I reported that I was using relative paths in the
>> gcc/binutils/winsup directory I was told "Don't do that. It isn't
>> supported." However, I'll mov
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:52 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> The last time I reported that I was using relative paths in the
> gcc/binutils/winsup directory I was told "Don't do that. It isn't
> supported." However, I'll move the call to Makefile.common earlier
> in Makefile.in.
>
> Thanks for
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 02:13:36AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 00:56 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> No, I duplicated this on Linux as well (after I tracked down a cocom
>> RPM), but that did make me think of other possibilities. The difference
>> seems to be if you p
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 00:56 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> No, I duplicated this on Linux as well (after I tracked down a cocom
> RPM), but that did make me think of other possibilities. The difference
> seems to be if you pass an absolute or relative path to the top-level
> configure script; o
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 01:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:42PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >Without it, after a successfully completed build:
> >
> >$ make clean -C i686-pc-cygwin/winsup/cygwin
> >[...]
> >$ make
> >[...goes until winsup/cygwin...]
> >[...co
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:34:27AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:07:27AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I *am* building on Linux, though, so maybe that's the difference.
>
>Nope. It works fine on Windows too.
I wonder if maybe you somehow have a devices.cc in yo
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:07:27AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I *am* building on Linux, though, so maybe that's the difference.
Nope. It works fine on Windows too.
cgf
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:42PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 19:03 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> This can't be right. In all of the times that I've run a "make clean",
>> I have never needed this. A .o relying on .cc is a given. You don't
>> need an explicit ru
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 19:03 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> This can't be right. In all of the times that I've run a "make clean",
> I have never needed this. A .o relying on .cc is a given. You don't
> need an explicit rule.
Without it, after a successfully completed build:
$ make clean -C
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 05:37:38PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>If you run make clean in winsup/cygwin followed by make -jX, the build
>fails because devices.cc is not found; it was removed by make clean but
>nothing forced it to be regenerated in time.
>
>Patch attached.
>
>
>Yaakov
>
>2011-0
10 matches
Mail list logo
