Subject: Re: why not "make includes" before "make do-tools" for
To: Andrew Brown <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 05/07/2003 21:37:24
[ On Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 20:52:18 (-0400), Andrew Brown wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: why not "make includes" before "make do-tools" for
> >Why not do "make includes" before "make do-tools" for
> >
> >It's necessary if you are trying to get buy with using " -u"
> >_and_ if changes to headers are needed in order to successfully build
> >some tools, but I'm not sure if it's possible (i.e. whether or not all
> >the tools used by "make includes" are already built and installed in the
> >tools directory before the general "make do-tools").  It seems to work
> >OK, but that's only after getting half-way through the do-tools stage
> >and then deciding to try saving some time with '-u'....
> that strikes me as a bad idea, since you could then end up with
> include files that reference functions that aren't implemented in libc
> yet, for example: __unsetenv13, __sigaction14, ...

How do you think that could possibly ever happen?!?!?

In the situation I'm talking about you have to go back and manually run
"make includes", or start from scratch, anyway, and either way the same
results should be created.  The normal dependencies recorded by the
dependall step should take care of recompiling any objects which make
use of the updated header file(s).  Indeed in my example that's exactly
what ended up happening.

								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <>;           <>
Planix, Inc. <>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <>