* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-27 23:43 [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Markus Trippelsdorf
@ 2011-10-28 2:11 ` Andi Kleen
2011-10-28 6:25 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-28 2:17 ` Joseph S. Myers
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2011-10-28 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: gcc-patches
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes:
> By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
> It's a pretty big update as you can see by the following diffstat. I
> cannot attach the patch even as a gzip file, because of its size:
>
> 417745 Oct 28 00:47 0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.gz
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Can you put it up for download somewhere? Does the slim bootstrap
now work on Linux?
I presume it needs at least the gcc-ar patch too, unless you use
custom AR/RANLIB wrappers.
The last time I tried slim bootstrap a long time ago I also ran into
some problems with the libcpp Makefiles.
But I agree it would be good to have for 4.7: it would be good
if the compiler could be actually bootstrapped with slim LTO,
and then a slim-lto-bootstrap config could be added.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-28 2:11 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2011-10-28 6:25 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-29 9:25 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2011-10-28 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 2011.10.27 at 17:29 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes:
>
> > By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> > libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> > -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
> > It's a pretty big update as you can see by the following diffstat. I
> > cannot attach the patch even as a gzip file, because of its size:
> >
> > 417745 Oct 28 00:47 0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.gz
> >
> > Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Can you put it up for download somewhere? Does the slim bootstrap
> now work on Linux?
http://trippelsdorf.de/0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.bz2
> I presume it needs at least the gcc-ar patch too, unless you use
> custom AR/RANLIB wrappers.
Yes, slim bootstrap now works on Linux. One has to point AR,
AR_FOR_TARGET, etc. to the wrappers and add "-fuse-linker-plugin" to the
various CFLAGS (BOOT_CFLAGS, STAGE1_CFLAGS and CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET).
> The last time I tried slim bootstrap a long time ago I also ran into
> some problems with the libcpp Makefiles.
I've seen no problems thus far in my testing.
--
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-28 6:25 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
@ 2011-10-29 9:25 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-29 13:01 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2011-10-29 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 2011.10.28 at 07:20 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2011.10.27 at 17:29 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes:
> >
> > > By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> > > libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> > > -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
> > > It's a pretty big update as you can see by the following diffstat. I
> > > cannot attach the patch even as a gzip file, because of its size:
> > >
> > > 417745 Oct 28 00:47 0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.gz
> > >
> > > Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> >
> > Can you put it up for download somewhere? Does the slim bootstrap
> > now work on Linux?
>
> http://trippelsdorf.de/0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.bz2
>
> > I presume it needs at least the gcc-ar patch too, unless you use
> > custom AR/RANLIB wrappers.
>
> Yes, slim bootstrap now works on Linux. One has to point AR,
> AR_FOR_TARGET, etc. to the wrappers and add "-fuse-linker-plugin" to the
> various CFLAGS (BOOT_CFLAGS, STAGE1_CFLAGS and CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET).
Here is what I use right now:
% cat config/slim-lto-bootstrap.mk
# This option enables slim LTO for stage2 and stage3.
STAGE2_CFLAGS += -flto=jobserver -fno-fat-lto-objects -frandom-seed=1
STAGE3_CFLAGS += -flto=jobserver -fno-fat-lto-objects -frandom-seed=1
STAGE_CFLAGS += -fuse-linker-plugin
STAGEprofile_CFLAGS += -fno-lto
AR=/usr/local/bin/ar
NM=/usr/local/bin/nm
RANLIB=/usr/local/bin/ranlib
AR_FOR_TARGET=/usr/local/bin/ar
NM_FOR_TARGET=/usr/local/bin/nm
RANLIB_FOR_TARGET=/usr/local/bin/ranlib
And the following patch to force fixincludes to honor CFLAGS:
diff --git a/Makefile.in b/Makefile.in
index d1206bd..3f3f9e0 100644
--- a/Makefile.in
+++ b/Makefile.in
@@ -2819,6 +2819,7 @@ configure-build-fixincludes:
test ! -f $(BUILD_SUBDIR)/fixincludes/Makefile || exit 0; \
$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/mkinstalldirs $(BUILD_SUBDIR)/fixincludes ; \
$(BUILD_EXPORTS) \
+ CFLAGS="$(STAGE_CFLAGS)"; export CFLAGS; \
echo Configuring in $(BUILD_SUBDIR)/fixincludes; \
cd "$(BUILD_SUBDIR)/fixincludes" || exit 1; \
case $(srcdir) in \
@@ -2854,6 +2855,7 @@ all-build-fixincludes: configure-build-fixincludes
$(BUILD_EXPORTS) \
(cd $(BUILD_SUBDIR)/fixincludes && \
$(MAKE) $(BASE_FLAGS_TO_PASS) $(EXTRA_BUILD_FLAGS) \
+ CFLAGS="$(STAGE_CFLAGS)" \
$(TARGET-build-fixincludes))
@endif build-fixincludes
@@ -7729,6 +7731,7 @@ configure-fixincludes:
test ! -f $(HOST_SUBDIR)/fixincludes/Makefile || exit 0; \
$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/mkinstalldirs $(HOST_SUBDIR)/fixincludes ; \
$(HOST_EXPORTS) \
+ CFLAGS="$(STAGE_CFLAGS)"; export CFLAGS; \
echo Configuring in $(HOST_SUBDIR)/fixincludes; \
cd "$(HOST_SUBDIR)/fixincludes" || exit 1; \
case $(srcdir) in \
@@ -7763,6 +7766,7 @@ all-fixincludes: configure-fixincludes
$(HOST_EXPORTS) \
(cd $(HOST_SUBDIR)/fixincludes && \
$(MAKE) $(BASE_FLAGS_TO_PASS) $(EXTRA_HOST_FLAGS) \
+ CFLAGS="$(STAGE_CFLAGS)" \
$(TARGET-fixincludes))
@endif fixincludes
With this in place you can configure and build gcc
--with-build-config=slim-lto-bootstrap .
I haven't figured out yet how to use gcc-ar et al. instead of the shell
wrappers. The plugin path seems to be hardcoded, which is unfortunate.
Would it be possible to make the wrappers more flexible, so that they
could be used during bootstrap?
--
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-29 9:25 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
@ 2011-10-29 13:01 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2011-10-29 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: Andi Kleen, gcc-patches
> I haven't figured out yet how to use gcc-ar et al. instead of the shell
> wrappers. The plugin path seems to be hardcoded, which is unfortunate.
> Would it be possible to make the wrappers more flexible, so that they
> could be used during bootstrap?
The path can be set with GCC_EXEC_PREFIX currently. Maybe the makefile
could set that.
I considered implementing -B, but I was afraid it would conflict with
some wrapped program option. Maybe there's a way around that.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-27 23:43 [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-28 2:11 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2011-10-28 2:17 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-10-28 6:51 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-28 9:04 ` Rainer Orth
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2011-10-28 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: gcc-patches, Ralf.Wildenhues
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
> It's a pretty big update as you can see by the following diffstat. I
> cannot attach the patch even as a gzip file, because of its size:
>
> 417745 Oct 28 00:47 0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.gz
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Comments? Stage 1 will end soon and it would be nice to get this in.
What about the issues with libtool's notion of sysroots, as mentioned in
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg02037.html> - have those
been resolved, and if so, how? And what about the directories only
present in the src repository that will also need updating for such a
toplevel change?
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-28 2:17 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2011-10-28 6:51 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-28 15:51 ` Joseph S. Myers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2011-10-28 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joseph S. Myers; +Cc: gcc-patches, Ralf.Wildenhues
On 2011.10.28 at 00:41 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> > By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> > libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> > -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
> > It's a pretty big update as you can see by the following diffstat. I
> > cannot attach the patch even as a gzip file, because of its size:
> >
> > 417745 Oct 28 00:47 0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.gz
> >
> > Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> >
> > Comments? Stage 1 will end soon and it would be nice to get this in.
>
> What about the issues with libtool's notion of sysroots, as mentioned in
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg02037.html> - have those
> been resolved, and if so, how? And what about the directories only
> present in the src repository that will also need updating for such a
> toplevel change?
Oops, you're right, libtools "with_sysroot" still clashes with gcc's
notion. But that should be easily fixable by just reverting one commit
(3334f7ed5851ef1) in libtool.
I'm afraid I don't understand your second question. Can you elaborate on
that?
And BTW my patch was just meant to get the ball rolling, not necessary
as the final solution.
--
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-28 6:51 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
@ 2011-10-28 15:51 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-10-28 16:07 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2011-10-28 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: gcc-patches, Ralf.Wildenhues
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > What about the issues with libtool's notion of sysroots, as mentioned in
> > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg02037.html> - have those
> > been resolved, and if so, how? And what about the directories only
> > present in the src repository that will also need updating for such a
> > toplevel change?
>
> Oops, you're right, libtools "with_sysroot" still clashes with gcc's
> notion. But that should be easily fixable by just reverting one commit
> (3334f7ed5851ef1) in libtool.
> I'm afraid I don't understand your second question. Can you elaborate on
> that?
Because of the shared toplevel build system, the gcc and src repositories
need to have their configure scripts etc. regenerated at the same time for
a change such as this (and it should be tested that binutils, newlib and
the other directories in the src repository do still build properly after
the regeneration).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-28 15:51 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2011-10-28 16:07 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2011-10-28 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joseph S. Myers; +Cc: gcc-patches, Ralf.Wildenhues
On 2011.10.28 at 15:34 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> > > What about the issues with libtool's notion of sysroots, as mentioned in
> > > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg02037.html> - have those
> > > been resolved, and if so, how? And what about the directories only
> > > present in the src repository that will also need updating for such a
> > > toplevel change?
> >
> > Oops, you're right, libtools "with_sysroot" still clashes with gcc's
> > notion. But that should be easily fixable by just reverting one commit
> > (3334f7ed5851ef1) in libtool.
> > I'm afraid I don't understand your second question. Can you elaborate on
> > that?
>
> Because of the shared toplevel build system, the gcc and src repositories
> need to have their configure scripts etc. regenerated at the same time for
> a change such as this (and it should be tested that binutils, newlib and
> the other directories in the src repository do still build properly after
> the regeneration).
OK. Although it appears that it was handled in a cascaded fashion the
last time:
Last gcc update was on : 2009-12-05
Last binutils update : 2010-01-09
--
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-27 23:43 [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-28 2:11 ` Andi Kleen
2011-10-28 2:17 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2011-10-28 9:04 ` Rainer Orth
2011-10-28 14:17 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-10-28 18:21 ` Matthias Klose
2011-10-28 18:01 ` Andreas Tobler
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rainer Orth @ 2011-10-28 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: gcc-patches, Ian Lance Taylor
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes:
> By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
I see that your patch doesn't deal with libgo/config, where a private
copy of libtool is kept. Would it be possible to get rid of that, given
that 2.4.2 does support Go?
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-28 9:04 ` Rainer Orth
@ 2011-10-28 14:17 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-10-28 18:21 ` Matthias Klose
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-10-28 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rainer Orth; +Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf, gcc-patches
Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:
> Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes:
>
>> By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
>> libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
>> -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
>
> I see that your patch doesn't deal with libgo/config, where a private
> copy of libtool is kept. Would it be possible to get rid of that, given
> that 2.4.2 does support Go?
I hope so, but that can probably be a separate patch after the main one
is in.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-28 9:04 ` Rainer Orth
2011-10-28 14:17 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2011-10-28 18:21 ` Matthias Klose
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Klose @ 2011-10-28 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rainer Orth; +Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf, gcc-patches, Ian Lance Taylor
On 10/28/2011 10:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes:
>
>> By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
>> libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
>> -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
>
> I see that your patch doesn't deal with libgo/config, where a private
> copy of libtool is kept. Would it be possible to get rid of that, given
> that 2.4.2 does support Go?
same for libjava/libltdl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-27 23:43 [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Markus Trippelsdorf
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-28 9:04 ` Rainer Orth
@ 2011-10-28 18:01 ` Andreas Tobler
2011-10-31 15:01 ` Rainer Orth
2011-10-31 21:39 ` v2[PATCH] " Markus Trippelsdorf
5 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Tobler @ 2011-10-28 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf, gcc-patches
On 28.10.11 01:35, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
> It's a pretty big update as you can see by the following diffstat. I
> cannot attach the patch even as a gzip file, because of its size:
>
> 417745 Oct 28 00:47 0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.gz
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
For the record:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-10/msg03138.html
Thanks!!!
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-27 23:43 [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Markus Trippelsdorf
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-28 18:01 ` Andreas Tobler
@ 2011-10-31 15:01 ` Rainer Orth
2011-10-31 19:21 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-10-31 21:39 ` v2[PATCH] " Markus Trippelsdorf
5 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Rainer Orth @ 2011-10-31 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: gcc-patches, Ian Lance Taylor
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes:
> By popular demand, I've prepared a patch that updates the in-tree
> libtool to version 2.4.2. It is needed for lto-bootstrap with
> -fno-fat-lto-objects and FreeBSD10.x versions.
> It's a pretty big update as you can see by the following diffstat. I
> cannot attach the patch even as a gzip file, because of its size:
>
> 417745 Oct 28 00:47 0001-update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.gz
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Comments? Stage 1 will end soon and it would be nice to get this in.
I've tried your patch on i386-pc-solaris2.11 this weekend in a variety
of configurations:
* using ld or gld 2.21.1,
* with the 32-bit default configuration (i386-pc-solaris2.11) and the
64-bit default configuration (amd64-pc-solaris2.11).
This revealed a couple of problems:
* If Go support is included (off by default), bootstrap breaks like this
while building libgo:
libtool: Version mismatch error. This is libtool 2.4.2, but the
libtool: definition of this LT_INIT comes from libtool 2.2.7a.
libtool: You should recreate aclocal.m4 with macros from libtool 2.4.2
libtool: and run autoconf again.
make[4]: *** [go-assert.lo] Error 63
To avoid this, I've run all bootstraps without Go.
* When building the 64-bit default gld configuration, building the
64-bit libjava fails like this:
Error libtool: compile: not configured to build any kind of library
libtool: compile: See the libtool documentation for more information.
make[5]: libtool: compile: Fatal configuration error.
I had already patched the copy of libtool.m4 to deal with the new
configuration and now also submitted it upstream:
Support 64-bit default GCC on Solaris/x86
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2011-10/msg00021.html
After applying the patch and regenerating all affected configure
scripts, the bootstrap completed.
With those two changes, all four bootstraps completed without regressions.
I made a quick comparison of the libtool.m4 in libgo/config with the
2.4.2 version: the only relevant change seems to be an instance of
AC_PROG_GO, which also lives in go.m4. Ian will know why that
additional copy is necessary.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-31 15:01 ` Rainer Orth
@ 2011-10-31 19:21 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-10-31 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rainer Orth; +Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf, gcc-patches
Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:
> I made a quick comparison of the libtool.m4 in libgo/config with the
> 2.4.2 version: the only relevant change seems to be an instance of
> AC_PROG_GO, which also lives in go.m4. Ian will know why that
> additional copy is necessary.
The version of AC_PROG_GO in libgo/config/go.m4 is there so that I can
rebuild libgo/configure with a version of autoconf that does not have Go
support.
The version of AC_PROG_GO in libgo/config/libtool.m4 is there because
all the languages work that way in libtool.m4.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: v2[PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-27 23:43 [RFC PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Markus Trippelsdorf
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-10-31 15:01 ` Rainer Orth
@ 2011-10-31 21:39 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-31 21:47 ` [PATCH] Use gcc's libtool in libgo Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-11-01 15:19 ` v2[PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Gerald Pfeifer
5 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2011-10-31 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
This is an updated version of the libtool update patch. It fixes the
--with-sysroot clash by reverting commit 3334f7ed5851ef1 in libtools.
I've also included Rainer's 64bit Solaris patch.
http://trippelsdorf.de/update-to-libtool-2.4.2-and-regenerate.patch.bz2
---
boehm-gc/Makefile.in | 3 +
boehm-gc/configure | 1857 ++++++--
boehm-gc/include/Makefile.in | 3 +
boehm-gc/include/gc_config.h.in | 6 -
boehm-gc/testsuite/Makefile.in | 3 +
fixincludes/configure | 95 +-
gcc/configure | 1383 +++++--
intl/config.h.in | 232 +-
intl/configure | 4764 +++++++++++++++-----
libffi/Makefile.in | 3 +
libffi/configure | 1430 +++++--
libffi/include/Makefile.in | 3 +
libffi/man/Makefile.in | 3 +
libffi/testsuite/Makefile.in | 3 +
libgfortran/Makefile.in | 3 +
libgfortran/configure | 1884 ++++++---
libgomp/Makefile.in | 3 +
libgomp/configure | 1886 ++++++---
libgomp/testsuite/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/Makefile.in | 2 +
libjava/classpath/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/configure | 1869 ++++++---
libjava/classpath/doc/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/doc/api/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/examples/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/external/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/external/jsr166/Makefile.in | 3 +
.../classpath/external/relaxngDatatype/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/external/sax/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/external/w3c_dom/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/include/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/lib/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/fdlibm/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jawt/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/classpath/Makefile.in | 3 +
.../classpath/native/jni/gconf-peer/Makefile.in | 3 +
.../native/jni/gstreamer-peer/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/gtk-peer/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/java-io/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/java-lang/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/java-math/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/java-net/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/java-nio/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/java-util/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/midi-alsa/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/midi-dssi/Makefile.in | 3 +
.../classpath/native/jni/native-lib/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/qt-peer/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/jni/xmlj/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/native/plugin/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/resource/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/scripts/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/classpath/tools/Makefile.in | 3 +
libjava/configure | 2164 +++++++---
libjava/gcj/Makefile.in | 4 +-
libjava/include/Makefile.in | 4 +-
libjava/testsuite/Makefile.in | 4 +-
libmudflap/Makefile.in | 3 +
libmudflap/configure | 1430 +++++--
libmudflap/testsuite/Makefile.in | 3 +
libobjc/configure | 1457 +++++--
libquadmath/Makefile.in | 3 +
libquadmath/configure | 1430 +++++--
libssp/Makefile.in | 3 +
libssp/configure | 1430 +++++--
libstdc++-v3/Makefile.in | 3 +
libstdc++-v3/configure | 1873 ++++++---
libstdc++-v3/doc/Makefile.in | 3 +
libstdc++-v3/include/Makefile.in | 3 +
libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/Makefile.in | 3 +
libstdc++-v3/po/Makefile.in | 3 +
libstdc++-v3/python/Makefile.in | 3 +
libstdc++-v3/src/Makefile.in | 3 +
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/Makefile.in | 3 +
libtool.m4 | 1292 ++++--
ltmain.sh | 2967 ++++++++----
lto-plugin/Makefile.in | 3 +
lto-plugin/configure | 1430 +++++--
ltoptions.m4 | 21 +-
ltversion.m4 | 12 +-
lt~obsolete.m4 | 2 +-
zlib/Makefile.in | 3 +
zlib/configure | 1430 +++++--
85 files changed, 24070 insertions(+), 8462 deletions(-)
--
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Use gcc's libtool in libgo
2011-10-31 21:39 ` v2[PATCH] " Markus Trippelsdorf
@ 2011-10-31 21:47 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-11-01 15:19 ` v2[PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2011-10-31 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
Here is a patch that updates libgo to use gcc's internal libtool
version. I've only retained config/go.m4 for now.
http://trippelsdorf.de/Use-gcc-s-libtool-in-libgo.patch.bz2
---
libgo/Makefile.in | 9 +-
libgo/aclocal.m4 | 10 +-
libgo/config/libtool.m4 | 7516 -------------------------------------
libgo/config/ltmain.sh | 8636 -------------------------------------------
libgo/config/ltoptions.m4 | 369 --
libgo/config/ltsugar.m4 | 123 -
libgo/config/ltversion.m4 | 23 -
libgo/config/lt~obsolete.m4 | 98 -
libgo/configure | 1747 +++++++---
libgo/testsuite/Makefile.in | 9 +-
10 files changed, 1276 insertions(+), 17264 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 libgo/config/libtool.m4
delete mode 100644 libgo/config/ltmain.sh
delete mode 100644 libgo/config/ltoptions.m4
delete mode 100644 libgo/config/ltsugar.m4
delete mode 100644 libgo/config/ltversion.m4
delete mode 100644 libgo/config/lt~obsolete.m4
diff --git a/libgo/Makefile.in b/libgo/Makefile.in
index 05223a6..bad8ed3 100644
--- a/libgo/Makefile.in
+++ b/libgo/Makefile.in
@@ -58,11 +58,7 @@ am__aclocal_m4_deps = $(top_srcdir)/../config/depstand.m4 \
$(top_srcdir)/../config/multi.m4 \
$(top_srcdir)/../config/override.m4 \
$(top_srcdir)/../config/unwind_ipinfo.m4 \
- $(top_srcdir)/config/go.m4 $(top_srcdir)/config/libtool.m4 \
- $(top_srcdir)/config/ltoptions.m4 \
- $(top_srcdir)/config/ltsugar.m4 \
- $(top_srcdir)/config/ltversion.m4 \
- $(top_srcdir)/config/lt~obsolete.m4 $(top_srcdir)/configure.ac
+ $(top_srcdir)/config/go.m4 $(top_srcdir)/configure.ac
am__configure_deps = $(am__aclocal_m4_deps) $(CONFIGURE_DEPENDENCIES) \
$(ACLOCAL_M4)
am__CONFIG_DISTCLEAN_FILES = config.status config.cache config.log \
@@ -365,6 +361,7 @@ CPPFLAGS = @CPPFLAGS@
CYGPATH_W = @CYGPATH_W@
DEFS = @DEFS@
DEPDIR = @DEPDIR@
+DLLTOOL = @DLLTOOL@
DSYMUTIL = @DSYMUTIL@
DUMPBIN = @DUMPBIN@
ECHO_C = @ECHO_C@
@@ -399,6 +396,7 @@ LN_S = @LN_S@
LTLIBOBJS = @LTLIBOBJS@
MAINT = @MAINT@
MAKEINFO = @MAKEINFO@
+MANIFEST_TOOL = @MANIFEST_TOOL@
MATH_LIBS = @MATH_LIBS@
MKDIR_P = @MKDIR_P@
NET_LIBS = @NET_LIBS@
@@ -434,6 +432,7 @@ abs_builddir = @abs_builddir@
abs_srcdir = @abs_srcdir@
abs_top_builddir = @abs_top_builddir@
abs_top_srcdir = @abs_top_srcdir@
+ac_ct_AR = @ac_ct_AR@
ac_ct_CC = @ac_ct_CC@
ac_ct_DUMPBIN = @ac_ct_DUMPBIN@
am__include = @am__include@
diff --git a/libgo/aclocal.m4 b/libgo/aclocal.m4
index ca453c6..9d4f58c 100644
--- a/libgo/aclocal.m4
+++ b/libgo/aclocal.m4
@@ -973,9 +973,9 @@ m4_include([../config/lead-dot.m4])
m4_include([../config/multi.m4])
m4_include([../config/override.m4])
m4_include([../config/unwind_ipinfo.m4])
+m4_include([../config/libtool.m4])
+m4_include([../config/ltoptions.m4])
+m4_include([../config/ltsugar.m4])
+m4_include([../config/ltversion.m4])
+m4_include([../config/lt~obsolete.m4])
m4_include([config/go.m4])
-m4_include([config/libtool.m4])
-m4_include([config/ltoptions.m4])
-m4_include([config/ltsugar.m4])
-m4_include([config/ltversion.m4])
-m4_include([config/lt~obsolete.m4])
diff --git a/libgo/config/libtool.m4 b/libgo/config/libtool.m4
deleted file mode 100644
index 1a667d3..0000000
--- a/libgo/config/libtool.m4
+++ /dev/null
...
--
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: v2[PATCH] update to libtool-2.4.2 and regenerate
2011-10-31 21:39 ` v2[PATCH] " Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-31 21:47 ` [PATCH] Use gcc's libtool in libgo Markus Trippelsdorf
@ 2011-11-01 15:19 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2011-11-01 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> This is an updated version of the libtool update patch. It fixes the
> --with-sysroot clash by reverting commit 3334f7ed5851ef1 in libtools.
> I've also included Rainer's 64bit Solaris patch.
For the record, older versions of libtool have references to Linux
(where RMS would like to see GNU/Linux) which this addresses, too.
Doing this update really beneficial from this side as well.
Gerald
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread