From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-103304-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2580 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2003 20:50:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2505 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 20:50:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.73.237.138)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 20:50:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 24635 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 20:44:57 -0000
Received: from taltos.codesourcery.com (zack@66.92.218.83)
  by mail.codesourcery.com with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 20:44:57 -0000
Received: by taltos.codesourcery.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon,  1 Dec 2003 12:49:59 -0800
From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: cpplib and iconv.h (bootstrap failure)
References: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0311161412530.78454@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
	<Pine.BSF.4.58.0312011941500.55975@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
	<87r7zoqro2.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<20031201204124.GA10657@nevyn.them.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:50:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20031201204124.GA10657@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's
 message of "Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:41:25 -0500")
Message-ID: <8765h0qn48.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00104.txt.bz2

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:11:41AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi Zack,
>> >
>> > do you think you'll have time to look into this regression caused by your
>> > patch before the next snapshot (on Wednesday)?
>> 
>> Please try the appended patch.  You will need to run autoconf and
>> autoheader.
>> 
>> I think this would also be addressed by updating to the latest iconv.m4,
>> but it requires autoconf 2.5x.  I'm not sure if the autoconf transition
>> ever got to the point where we could cut over the gcc directory.
>
> It did.  It won't be painless but if you touch base with Nathanael
> there should be very little left.

Nathanael, thoughts?

zw