From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80054 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2018 09:49:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 79114 invoked by uid 89); 31 Oct 2018 09:48:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=feasible, H*f:sk:b55b056, H*i:sk:b55b056, advised X-HELO: mail-lf1-f43.google.com Received: from mail-lf1-f43.google.com (HELO mail-lf1-f43.google.com) (209.85.167.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:48:26 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-f43.google.com with SMTP id n26-v6so11152283lfl.1; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 02:48:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=43qKtPdntQzoJK1QxZqFvFEFAju0KkEJCNYAyDP0rm4=; b=TVq0peP+6GTxcr3+h/nFFG/XGs5Wprc5sjhpexLvM5obEvVpS1VTlC4FD61Ey65Ze3 ydWJZEEkNqHBz/s99DOydk8KIrlDGZ4Hq27uoG8tjhJS/WDb9r72uRzOeLb/hQAIh/Nm 9EvsVI0Wy2UQDmC6M7TwTaJwiKG8xpSfTQPP+hWLWgkS9kVGs+5ovETEwA2WjMgmh2G/ 2NirTE8Su0bicj1k3/2e+T60Crav1uZ/dzzEF6sbfpYH+o0HlIzpQTl8codionI/Y0W+ bBXw7itOUkfQgdEi+JoJlPPCJWwSbLxP7Xrcgc4vJXgChYmoxkctl9G/XmY2L+vsuvCO 28wA== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Update GCC to autoconf 2.69, automake 1.15.1 To: Thomas Koenig Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , GCC Patches , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , "libstdc++" , Bruce Korb , ibuclaw@gdcproject.org, Ian Lance Taylor , Jakub Jelinek , cmtice@google.com, simon.marchi@ericsson.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg02009.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:12 AM Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Am 31.10.18 um 04:26 schrieb Joseph Myers: > > This patch (diffs to generated files omitted below) updates GCC to use > > autoconf 2.69 and automake 1.15.1. > > I think this should fix PR 82856. Maybe you could confirm that this > restores automake functionality with perl 5.6.26, and mention the PR > in the ChangeLog. > > > > > Makefile.am:48: warning: source file 'caf/single.c' is in a subdirectory, > > Makefile.am:48: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled > > automake: warning: possible forward-incompatibility. > > automake: At least a source file is in a subdirectory, but the 'subdir-objects' > > automake: automake option hasn't been enabled. For now, the corresponding output > > automake: object file(s) will be placed in the top-level directory. However, > > automake: this behaviour will change in future Automake versions: they > > will > > automake: unconditionally cause object files to be placed in the same subdirectory > > automake: of the corresponding sources. > > automake: You are advised to start using 'subdir-objects' option throughout your > > automake: project, to avoid future incompatibilities. > > > > I think it's best for the relevant maintainers to add subdir-objects > > and do any other associated Makefile.am changes needed. In some cases > > the paths in the warnings involved ../; I don't know if that adds any > > extra complications to the use of subdir-objects. > > I'm not an automake expert, but I hope to be able to figure out > what is needed. If not, I guess I'll just ask :-) > > What is the plan for the previous branches? Currently, it is necessary > to keep around a special version of automake etc for > --enable-maintainer-mode to work. Backporting a patch which > involves regeneration of files in libgfortran/generated from > the files in libgfortan/m4 would then require keeping two versions > of the relevant tools around, and switching between them. Does the regeneration really involve the automake/autoconf part or would it be feasible to decouple it from --enable-maintainer-mode? > Would it make sense to backport because of this? I don't think so. Richard. > Thanks for your efforts! > > Regards > > Thomas