GNU bug report logs - #11034
Removing 'cygnus' mode in the near future

Previous Next

Full log

Message #98 received at 11034 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Miles Bader <miles <at> gnu.org>
To: Pedro Alves <palves <at> redhat.com>
Cc: gcc <at> gcc.gnu.org, Roumen Petrov <bugtrack <at> roumenpetrov.info>,
	11034 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, gdb <at> sourceware.org,
	Ian Lance Taylor <iant <at> google.com>,
	"automake-patches <at> gnu.org" <automake-patches <at> gnu.org>,
	automake <at> gnu.org, Tom Tromey <tromey <at> redhat.com>, ams <at> gnu.org,
	Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>,
	binutils <at> sourceware.org, joseph <at> codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:53:15 +0900

Pedro Alves <palves <at> redhat.com> 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-builddir' (whose name should
>> made it clear that it is not meant for public consumption).
>
> So will this be called a hack forever, or will the naming be revisited
> before a release?  IMO, either the feature is sensible, and there doesn't
> seem to be a good reason other users couldn't also use it, and hence it
> should get a non-hackish name and be documented; or it isn't sensible, and
> then it shouldn't exist.  Why the second-class treatment?

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...

-miles

-- 
Alone, adj. In bad company.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.