Re: 2 suggestions

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > I guess "x" is fine with me. However can we use "x" only in the > > anchor and not the link's text label? E.g.: > > > >alpha*-*-* > > > > That way, the part people actually read in the document still uses > > asterisk that they are us

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > This patch accomplishes the goal to get rid of asterisks in @anchor > names by > > - replacing components of a target triplet which read "*" by "x", > - and omiting trailing asterisks from all other components. > > Tested by running doc/install.texi2

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote: >> ...if we are absolutely disallowed to use "*", probably just replacing >> "*" by "x" without any prefix might be the lesser of all evils? > So long as things to get ported to the x-box? That port wouldn't be called x-box, because dash separa

Re: 2 suggestions

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: I like prepending a string, for example target= or triplet=, etc. Okay. However,... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote: If "*-*-solaris2*" should appear as/in the "name" attribute of an , prepending a name start char

Re: 2 suggestions

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: by setting Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page to the anchor. I'm not sure w

Re: 2 suggestions

> ...if we are absolutely disallowed to use "*", probably just > replacing "*" by "x" without any prefix might be the lesser of all > evils? I guess "x" is fine with me. However can we use "x" only in the anchor and not the link's text label? E.g.: alpha*-*-* That way, the part peop

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote: If "*-*-solaris2*" should appear as/in the "name" attribute of an , prepending a name start character is not enough, because this attribute is of type NMTOKEN. Therefore it cannot contain * at all. ...if we are abs

Re: 2 suggestions

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > I like prepending a string, for example target= or triplet=, etc. Okay. However,... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > If "*-*-solaris2*" should appear as/in the "name" attribute of an , > prepending a name start character is not enough, beca

RE: 2 suggestions

Original Message >From: Dave Korn >Sent: 14 April 2005 10:12 > Original Message >> From: Kaveh R. Ghazi >> Sent: 14 April 2005 01:11 > >> > I'm afraid we'll have to rename all of these in some way, either by >> > replacing "*" by "x" or by prepending some string. I'm not too fo

RE: 2 suggestions

Original Message >From: Kaveh R. Ghazi >Sent: 14 April 2005 01:11 > > I'm afraid we'll have to rename all of these in some way, either by > > replacing "*" by "x" or by prepending some string. I'm not too fond > > of either, but just using "x" instead "*" might be less ugly. > > Somew

Re: 2 suggestions

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: by setting Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page to the anchor. I'm not sure w

Re: 2 suggestions

> I'm afraid we'll have to rename all of these in some way, either by > replacing "*" by "x" or by prepending some string. I'm not too fond > of either, but just using "x" instead "*" might be less ugly. > Somewhat. > What do you think? > Gerald I like prepending a string, for example targe

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: >>> Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: >>> by setting > Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page > to the anchor. I'm not sure why that is

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11:25PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: I don't know about the utility of example scripts in general, but for this specific case, I strongly feel autoconf should automatically detect this and reexec the configure script under /bin/ksh. Is

Re: 2 suggestions

Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: | | > If people would simply follow the directions here: | > by setting | > CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, | | Indeed - I stopped counting how many h

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11:25PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > I don't know about the utility of example scripts in general, but for > this specific case, I strongly feel autoconf should automatically > detect this and reexec the configure script under /bin/ksh. Is there a specific test we can

Re: 2 suggestions

> > CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, they > > wouldn't have such insane build times. I bet it cuts the 48 hours > > to single digits. > > The trouble is that *people* are building this. Googling turns up: > "Freemans rule: Nothing is so simple that it cannot be mi

Re: 2 suggestions

> > Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: > > by setting > > I think this docoument could be made more useful by having the more > specific cases refer people to the applicable more general cases. If by t

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:14:58PM -0400, Ray Holme wrote: > Perhaps this is why I use /bin/sh for all scripts I write - tis leaner and > meaner by far. But the implementation provided by several vendors (Solaris, AIX) is *extremely* slow for some operations, so slow as to add 24 hours to the time

Re: 2 suggestions

Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: If people would simply follow the directions here: by setting CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, Indeed - I stopped counting how many hours of debugging shell scripts on our Sun server I saved (fo

Re: 2 suggestions

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote: So, I'd like to know if the variations in how to build GCC are so numerous that having a collection of example build scripts is a stupid idea. I think that examples are valuable in aiding understanding. Examples often seem clearer than descriptive text, though the

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 > > hours for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still [...] > > Configure with --disable-libgcj. I even considered making this the [...] Not necessary.

Re: 2 suggestions

This is why I suggested several parameters to the question. Assumedly if the parameters were the same, so would the answer be. Note that lots of scripts do the same style confuring and a dictionary or param-set responses was what I was suggesting. It was merely a simple suggestion and I believe it

Re: 2 suggestions

>Also it helps a lot to remove paths to directories over the network (like >NFS) >from PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH if this is possible. Saves me half of >bootstrap time with our crappy network setup here at university. > Old trick and highly relevent - but this sun mounts nothing NFS wise. Thanks,

Re: 2 suggestions

Perhaps this is why I use /bin/sh for all scripts I write - tis leaner and meaner by far. Course it cannot do some things - but so far that has never been a problem. Ray Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thursday, April 7, 2005 at 12:56 PM wrote: >> Not necessary. If people would simply f

Re: 2 suggestions

> Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: > by setting > CONFIG_SHELL to /bin/ksh before configure;make bootstrap, they > wouldn't have such insane build times. I bet it cuts the 48 hours to > single digits. Sure,

Re: 2 suggestions

> > 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 > > hours for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still > > going - it would be very nice if one could compile the compiler and > > what it needs without having to build the entire java set (yes I > > know it

Re: 2 suggestions

On Apr 7, 2005 6:12 PM, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 hours > > for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still going - it > > would be very nice if one could compile the compiler and what it needs > > wi

Re: 2 suggestions

> 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compile, last year it was 26 hours > for me, this year I just surpassed 48 hours and it is still going - it > would be very nice if one could compile the compiler and what it needs > without having to build the entire java set (yes I know it is bigger and >

Re: 2 suggestions

On Apr 7, 2005 5:54 PM, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ray Holme writes: > > Ray> 2) Much of the time is spent in the several iterations of building a > Ray> product doing the convfigure steps. These are repeated ad nauseum with > the > Ray> results being obtained the hard way

Re: 2 suggestions

> Ray Holme writes: Ray> 2) Much of the time is spent in the several iterations of building a Ray> product doing the convfigure steps. These are repeated ad nauseum with the Ray> results being obtained the hard way each time. As a database person, it Ray> seems to me that by perhaps having a s

Re: 2 suggestions

> > Firstly - I love your product and have used it for years. > > I run on the Solaris Sparc platform mostly but use Linux and flavors of > Windows at times. My Sun is getting older so both of these suggestions > would help developers on less-than-super machines. > > 1) years ago GCC took about

2 suggestions

Firstly - I love your product and have used it for years. I run on the Solaris Sparc platform mostly but use Linux and flavors of Windows at times. My Sun is getting older so both of these suggestions would help developers on less-than-super machines. 1) years ago GCC took about 2 hours to compil