Hi,
On Fri, 8 May 2015 16:41:02, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2015, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> One example where there is an incompatibility is "missing":
>>
>> Formerly it had code that emulated the missing "flex" by
>> creating a dummy lex.yy.c from the hopefully installed
>> pre-compiled flex output file. But the version from the
>> trunk does nothing, which breaks all configure scripts
>> that used AM_PROG_LEX. I do assume that the
>> automake scripts just use a different way to achieve
>> the same goal, if flex is not installed.
>
> It seems like a bug to me that "missing" changed its interface. However,
> since GCC doesn't use flex in any directory that uses, or is a
> subdirectory of a directory that uses, automake, clearly that change is of
> no relevance to the version of automake used in GCC. In any case, GCC
> release tarballs should always have timestamps in the right order for
> non-checked-in generated files, and contrib/gcc_update should always be
> used when checking out checked-in generated files to get the timestamps in
> the right order, so no supported case of building GCC should ever get as
> far as trying to use "missing" to regenerate something unless there are
> bugs in the makefiles, gcc_update etc.
>
But it made the in-tree gmp configure script fail. That would not
have happened if we did not pass our version of missing to a sub-
module like gmp, that already has a working missing script that behaves
differently.
Fortunately gmp does not really need flex for anything,
except one example.
Bernd.
