intl directory: gcc vs. src

intl directory: gcc vs. src

[Steve Ellcey]

I sent this email earlier to just binutils and got no replies, so I
thought I would try broadening my scope:


While looking at updating the src tree to use newer versions of autoconf
I have run into the issue of the intl directory.  I found some old
discussions about the two different versions (one in the src tree, one
in the gcc tree) but it doesn't look like any work was done to bring
them into alignment.

By removing the AM_PROG_INSTALL definition from aclocal.m4 I was able to
run autoconf 2.59 on the src tree intl subdir with no problems but I was
wondering if we should take the time to synchronize the GCC intl
directory with the src tree intl directory.  The GCC version is already
configured with autoconf 2.59.

I did some testing by copying my GCC intl directory (plus config.rpath)
into my src tree and I was able to build binutils and gas with no
problem and with no other changes needed.  This was on a system where
libintl was not installed and the intl subdir was built.

What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl?  Do they use
the GCC version or the src tree version?  Is there any consensus about
whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
which one should be used?

Steve Ellcey
sje@cup.hp.com

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Steve Ellcey <sje@cup.hp.com> writes:

> By removing the AM_PROG_INSTALL definition from aclocal.m4 I was able to
> run autoconf 2.59 on the src tree intl subdir with no problems but I was
> wondering if we should take the time to synchronize the GCC intl
> directory with the src tree intl directory.  The GCC version is already
> configured with autoconf 2.59.
> 
> I did some testing by copying my GCC intl directory (plus config.rpath)
> into my src tree and I was able to build binutils and gas with no
> problem and with no other changes needed.  This was on a system where
> libintl was not installed and the intl subdir was built.
> 
> What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl?  Do they use
> the GCC version or the src tree version?  Is there any consensus about
> whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
> which one should be used?

Yes, there should be a single version of intl.  I don't think anybody
cares which version is used, as long as it works.  If you have taken
the time to test a unified intl, and are prepared to fix any problems,
I think your patch would be great.

Ian

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[James Lemke]

> What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl?  Do they use
> the GCC version or the src tree version?  Is there any consensus about
> whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
> which one should be used?

FWIW, I have always given preference to the gcc version.

-- 
Jim Lemke   jwlemke@wasabisystems.com   Orillia, Ontario

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[Steve Ellcey]

> > What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl?  Do they use
> > the GCC version or the src tree version?  Is there any consensus about
> > whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
> > which one should be used?
> 
> Yes, there should be a single version of intl.  I don't think anybody
> cares which version is used, as long as it works.  If you have taken
> the time to test a unified intl, and are prepared to fix any problems,
> I think your patch would be great.
> 
> Ian

OK, I can sign up for that.  While looking at the changes needed for the
text in the MAINTAINERS file, I saw the following entry for libiberty:

| libiberty/; libiberty's part of include/
|        gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org
|        Changes need to be done in tandem with the official GCC
|        sources or submitted to the master file maintainer and brought
|        in via a merge.  Note: approved patches in gcc's libiberty
|        are automatically approved in this libiberty also; feel free
|        to merge them yourself if needed sooner than the next merge.
|        Otherwise, changes are automatically merged, usually within
|        a day.

Can someone tell me about this automatic merge?  I was going to submit a
formal patch to change the contents of src/intl but it seems that if we
have an automatic merge to copy libiberty from gcc to src, we could do
the same for intl (and src/config.rhost) and then I wouldn't need to do
any actual checkins for those changes.  If we can do that then the only
thing I would need to change by hand would be the intl text that is in
the MAINTAINERS file.

Who maintains this automatic merge process?

Steve Ellcey
sje@cup.hp.com

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:36:22PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Can someone tell me about this automatic merge?  I was going to submit a
> formal patch to change the contents of src/intl but it seems that if we
> have an automatic merge to copy libiberty from gcc to src, we could do
> the same for intl (and src/config.rhost) and then I wouldn't need to do
> any actual checkins for those changes.  If we can do that then the only
> thing I would need to change by hand would be the intl text that is in
> the MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> Who maintains this automatic merge process?

The man to ask about this is DJ Delorie.  I'm not sure how much work it
is on his part, though.

Either way it would probably be best to do the initial sync by hand.
And is it really plausible that nothing in src would need updating for
the new intl?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[DJ Delorie]

> Who maintains this automatic merge process?

Me.  I have a cron job that checks out gcc's and src's libiberty and
include, compares them, copies any differing files to src, and sends
me email.  I then run a "do it" script to do the actual commit.

There's not much advantage in using this setup for an initial merge
(it would take as much effort to set it up as it would to just do the
merge).  It's much more useful as an ongoing merge system.

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[Bobby McNulty]

DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Who maintains this automatic merge process?
>>     
>
> Me.  I have a cron job that checks out gcc's and src's libiberty and
> include, compares them, copies any differing files to src, and sends
> me email.  I then run a "do it" script to do the actual commit.
>
> There's not much advantage in using this setup for an initial merge
> (it would take as much effort to set it up as it would to just do the
> merge).  It's much more useful as an ongoing merge system.
>
>
>   
Was there not a way to combine the two (gcc and src) via console commands?
I recall doing this a long time ago, back when Mumitt was around.
He had a web page describing how to build the tool chain for 
cygwin/mingw/linux.
There was another one on sourceware.
i have not done this in years. (5).
Bobby

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[DJ Delorie]

> Was there not a way to combine the two (gcc and src) via console commands?

We're not talking about combining source trees for a build, we're
talking about making sure both source trees happen to have the same
sources in them to start with.

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[Steve Ellcey]

> > Who maintains this automatic merge process?
> 
> The man to ask about this is DJ Delorie.  I'm not sure how much work it
> is on his part, though.
> 
> Either way it would probably be best to do the initial sync by hand.
> And is it really plausible that nothing in src would need updating for
> the new intl?
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery

If something in src is going to need updating I don't know what it is.
I built binutils, gas, and gdb on HP-UX platforms using the gcc intl
directory and had no problems.  When I built on Linux the intl directory
was basically ignored because it used the system gettext stuff.

I'm sure something might need updating after this change and I am
willing to try and fix anything I break, but I am not sure what other
testing I can do with the platforms I have available.  Do you have any
suggestions as to what products or platforms might cause problems?

I did get one reply from a combined-tree user who said they used the gcc
version of intl when building things in a combined-tree.

Steve Ellcey
sje@cup.hp.com

Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:06:29PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I'm sure something might need updating after this change and I am
> willing to try and fix anything I break, but I am not sure what other
> testing I can do with the platforms I have available.  Do you have any
> suggestions as to what products or platforms might cause problems?

No; I'm just surprised that it worked.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery