This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove symlinks created in argv0-symlink.exp and general cleanup
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:43:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove symlinks created in argv0-symlink.exp and general cleanup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1438287227-11303-1-git-send-email-simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com> <55BF7962 dot 3060106 at redhat dot com> <55BF85BC dot 8040102 at ericsson dot com> <55BF9811 dot 50202 at redhat dot com> <20150804172110 dot GI4777 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22TsqOiq6AM9h_0A-a7rp=dX6ds-E8K21goX+AK5UMjadA at mail dot gmail dot com> <55CB123F dot 70603 at redhat dot com> <87r3n85ukx dot fsf at redhat dot com> <20150812172225 dot GE22245 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22QyyO9ni8bAPcweauUPWdH59rFiTDwYf5W6YxY9gwBQiQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
> I suspect, though I haven't tried, if we remove the
> check-parallel/check-single test, it would be straightforward to
> remove the GNU make requirement and just move the details to a wrapper
> script.
Dependency tracking also requires GNU/Make; would you be able to
take care of that through the wrapper?
> Always invoking runtest by a wrapper script has other benefits.
>
> I'm not advocating for this, I only ever use GNU make.
> But if the topic comes up, it's not clear to me GNU make
> is an absolute requirement.
It would be nice to list the additional benefits and decide whether
we want to go that route or not, ideally more-or-less independently
of whether we want to require GNU/Make or not.
The reason why I am advocating in favor of requiring GNU/Make is that
we are regularly hindered or doing extra work trying to support non-
GNU/Make, while on the other hand, the community affected by this
proposal only need to update their build procedures to put GNU/Make
on their PATH. And since GCC already requires GNU/Make, I cannot
understand why it would be difficult to do so.
--
Joel