Re: toolchain/45669: lib-src Makefile:136: *** recipe commences before first target. Stop

[Mike Riechers <mlr%rse.com@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/45669; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Mike Riechers <mlr%rse.com@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: mlr%rse.com@localhost
Subject: Re: toolchain/45669: lib-src Makefile:136: *** recipe commences before 
first target.  Stop
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:18:00 -0500

 On Tuesday 29 November 2011 4:30:06 am Martin Husemann wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR toolchain/45669; it has been noted by
 > GNATS.
 >
 > From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: toolchain/45669: lib-src Makefile:136: *** recipe commences
 > before first target.  Stop Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:25:03 +0100
 >
 >  On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:25:00AM +0000, mlr%rse.com@localhost wrote:
 >  > Dunno. Better of:
 >  > Change the behavior of the new gcc cpp to honour the \<eol> sequence.
 >
 >  Since the output is equivalent for C, it makes no sense to blame the C
 >  preprocessor for this output.
 >
 >  So IMHO better do:
 >  > Change the sed sequence in emacs-20.7/configure to snuff all \<eol>:
 >
 >  But maybe you can get away with "cpp -x assembler-with-cpp" or cpp
 > -std=... for now?
 >
 >  Martin
 
 Thanks for addressing this issue.
 
 My gut says you are right.  But a couple of points.
 
 1.  I've racked my brain for some simple combination of sed/tr to rid the
 file of all \<eol>'s, safely, under all conditions of input, but I can't.
 Seems silly that such a simple thing can't be done short of writing a
 short C program to to it.  Actually, does one exist?
 
 2.  I'm curious to know how and why the preprocessor changed, and what the
 "cpp -x assembler-with-cpp", etc, will do.  The change appears to be
 undocumented, since info says that "  3. Continued lines are merged into
 one long line."  as part of "1.2 Initial processing", without qualification,
 as far as I can tell.
 
 But I can get away with any option that works, for now.
 
 Yours,
 
 -Mike