http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #20 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-10 22:57:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) >> It works with read-only sources, provided everything is consistent. Or are >> you saying that a t-snip must not use $(STAMP)? > > I'm saying that the build process should never touch the source tree. Isn't ./gcc/doc/md.texi both in the repo and generated (from ./gcc/doc/md.texi.in)? And, if parts of the docs are changed you will we nagged to verify GFDL and to copy the new, auto-generated parts in place? >> Actually, the PR boils down to the fact the STAMP is not defined, I am not >> sure if the compiler is supposed to build without STAMP. > > Probably not, but what I'm trying to understand is why we seem to be fiddling > with the source tree when building the gnattools. As far as gnattools are concerned, it makes no difference whether the auto-generated files are stamped and written to $build or stamped and written to $source. I agree that the $source vs. $build matter should be cleaned up. However, that won't help with this PR because the rules and the dependencies and the needed tools will remain the same.
