[PATCH] gcc/configure: Re-introduce INSTALL_INFO

[PATCH] gcc/configure: Re-introduce INSTALL_INFO

[Christophe Lyon]

BUILD_INFO is currently a byproduct of checking makeinfo
presence/version.  INSTALL_INFO used to be defined similarly, but was
removed in 2000 (!) by commit 17db658241d18cf6db59d31bc2d6eac96e9257df
(svn r38141).

In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
info files need an update.

I noticed this when testing a patch posted on the gcc-patches list,
leading to an error at 'make install' time after updating tm.texi (the
build reported 'new text' in tm.texi and stopped).  This is because
'install' depends on 'install-info', which depends on
$(DESTDIR)$(infodir)/gccint.info (among others).

This patch replaces the 'install-info' dependency in 'install' with
$(INSTALL_INFO), thus enabling to skip this step.

2024-02-01  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>

	gcc/
	* Makefile.in: Add INSTALL_INFO.
	* configure.ac: Add INSTALL_INFO.
	* configure: Regenerate.
---
 gcc/Makefile.in  | 3 ++-
 gcc/configure    | 3 +++
 gcc/configure.ac | 3 +++
 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index 95caa54a52b..4d38b162307 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
@@ -817,6 +817,7 @@ INSTALL_HEADERS=install-headers install-mkheaders
 
 # Control whether Info documentation is built and installed.
 BUILD_INFO = @BUILD_INFO@
+INSTALL_INFO = @INSTALL_INFO@
 
 # Control flags for @contents placement in HTML output
 MAKEINFO_TOC_INLINE_FLAG = @MAKEINFO_TOC_INLINE_FLAG@
@@ -3785,7 +3786,7 @@ maintainer-clean:
 # Install the driver last so that the window when things are
 # broken is small.
 install: install-common $(INSTALL_HEADERS) \
-    install-cpp install-man install-info install-@POSUB@ \
+    install-cpp install-man $(INSTALL_INFO) install-@POSUB@ \
     install-driver install-lto-wrapper install-gcc-ar
 
 ifeq ($(enable_plugin),yes)
diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
index 4acb254d830..00f8c7ed6fb 100755
--- a/gcc/configure
+++ b/gcc/configure
@@ -826,6 +826,7 @@ FLEX
 GENERATED_MANPAGES
 MAKEINFO_TOC_INLINE_FLAG
 BUILD_INFO
+INSTALL_INFO
 MAKEINFO
 have_mktemp_command
 make_compare_target
@@ -8836,8 +8837,10 @@ $as_echo "$as_me: WARNING:
 *** Makeinfo is missing or too old.
 *** Info documentation will not be built." >&2;}
   BUILD_INFO=
+  INSTALL_INFO=
 else
   BUILD_INFO=info
+  INSTALL_INFO=install-info
 fi
 
 
diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
index d2ed14496c1..1041c2391fb 100644
--- a/gcc/configure.ac
+++ b/gcc/configure.ac
@@ -1246,10 +1246,13 @@ if test $gcc_cv_prog_makeinfo_modern = no; then
 *** Makeinfo is missing or too old.
 *** Info documentation will not be built.])
   BUILD_INFO=
+  INSTALL_INFO=
 else
   BUILD_INFO=info
+  INSTALL_INFO=install-info
 fi
 AC_SUBST(BUILD_INFO)
+AC_SUBST(INSTALL_INFO)
 
 # Determine whether makeinfo supports the CONTENTS_OUTPUT_LOCATION variable.
 # If it does, we want to pass it to makeinfo in order to restore the old
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] gcc/configure: Re-introduce INSTALL_INFO

[rep.dot.nop]

On 1 February 2024 18:15:34 CET, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>BUILD_INFO is currently a byproduct of checking makeinfo
>presence/version.  INSTALL_INFO used to be defined similarly, but was
>removed in 2000 (!) by commit 17db658241d18cf6db59d31bc2d6eac96e9257df
>(svn r38141).
>
>In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
>works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
>info files need an update.

Instead of resurrecting INSTALL_INFO maybe you could something along the lines of

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15038&action=edit

not sure which approach would be considered cleaner..

HTH

Re: [PATCH] gcc/configure: Re-introduce INSTALL_INFO

[Christophe Lyon]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:10, <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1 February 2024 18:15:34 CET, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> >BUILD_INFO is currently a byproduct of checking makeinfo
> >presence/version.  INSTALL_INFO used to be defined similarly, but was
> >removed in 2000 (!) by commit 17db658241d18cf6db59d31bc2d6eac96e9257df
> >(svn r38141).
> >
> >In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
> >works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
> >info files need an update.
>
> Instead of resurrecting INSTALL_INFO maybe you could something along the lines of
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15038&action=edit

Ha indeed something along these lines would work too.
Thanks for the archaeology :-)

>
> not sure which approach would be considered cleaner..
Not sure either.

What do maintainers prefer?

>
> HTH

[PATCH] gcc/Makefile.in: Fix install-info target if BUILD_INFO is empty

[Christophe Lyon]

BUILD_INFO is currently a byproduct of checking makeinfo
presence/version.  INSTALL_INFO used to be defined similarly, but was
removed in 2000 (!) by commit 17db658241d18cf6db59d31bc2d6eac96e9257df
(svn r38141).

In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
info files need an update.

I noticed this when testing a patch posted on the gcc-patches list,
leading to an error at 'make install' time after updating tm.texi (the
build reported 'new text' in tm.texi and stopped).  This is because
'install' depends on 'install-info', which depends on
$(DESTDIR)$(infodir)/gccint.info (among others).

This patch makes the 'install-info' dependency in 'install'
conditioned by BUILD_INFO.

2024-02-05  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>

	gcc/
	* Makefile.in: Use install-info only if BUILD_INFO is not empty.
---
 gcc/Makefile.in | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index 4d38b162307..6cb564cfd35 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
@@ -817,7 +817,6 @@ INSTALL_HEADERS=install-headers install-mkheaders
 
 # Control whether Info documentation is built and installed.
 BUILD_INFO = @BUILD_INFO@
-INSTALL_INFO = @INSTALL_INFO@
 
 # Control flags for @contents placement in HTML output
 MAKEINFO_TOC_INLINE_FLAG = @MAKEINFO_TOC_INLINE_FLAG@
@@ -3786,9 +3785,13 @@ maintainer-clean:
 # Install the driver last so that the window when things are
 # broken is small.
 install: install-common $(INSTALL_HEADERS) \
-    install-cpp install-man $(INSTALL_INFO) install-@POSUB@ \
+    install-cpp install-man install-@POSUB@ \
     install-driver install-lto-wrapper install-gcc-ar
 
+ifneq ($(BUILD_INFO),)
+install: install-info
+endif
+
 ifeq ($(enable_plugin),yes)
 install: install-plugin
 endif
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] gcc/configure: Re-introduce INSTALL_INFO

[Christophe Lyon]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:40, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:10, <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1 February 2024 18:15:34 CET, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >BUILD_INFO is currently a byproduct of checking makeinfo
> > >presence/version.  INSTALL_INFO used to be defined similarly, but was
> > >removed in 2000 (!) by commit 17db658241d18cf6db59d31bc2d6eac96e9257df
> > >(svn r38141).
> > >
> > >In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
> > >works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
> > >info files need an update.
> >
> > Instead of resurrecting INSTALL_INFO maybe you could something along the lines of
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15038&action=edit
>
> Ha indeed something along these lines would work too.
> Thanks for the archaeology :-)
>
> >
> > not sure which approach would be considered cleaner..
> Not sure either.
>
> What do maintainers prefer?
>

Actually that leads to a small patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/644957.html

> >
> > HTH

Re: [PATCH] gcc/configure: Re-introduce INSTALL_INFO

[rep.dot.nop]

On 5 February 2024 12:30:23 CET, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:40, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:10, <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 1 February 2024 18:15:34 CET, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > >BUILD_INFO is currently a byproduct of checking makeinfo
>> > >presence/version.  INSTALL_INFO used to be defined similarly, but was
>> > >removed in 2000 (!) by commit 17db658241d18cf6db59d31bc2d6eac96e9257df
>> > >(svn r38141).
>> > >
>> > >In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
>> > >works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
>> > >info files need an update.
>> >
>> > Instead of resurrecting INSTALL_INFO maybe you could something along the lines of
>> >
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15038&action=edit
>>
>> Ha indeed something along these lines would work too.
>> Thanks for the archaeology :-)
>>
>> >
>> > not sure which approach would be considered cleaner..
>> Not sure either.
>>
>> What do maintainers prefer?
>>
>
>Actually that leads to a small patch:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/644957.html

Thats even better.
thanks

>
>> >
>> > HTH

Re: [PATCH] gcc/Makefile.in: Fix install-info target if BUILD_INFO is empty

[Alexandre Oliva]

Hello, Christophe,

Thanks for the patch.

On Feb  5, 2024, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:

> In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
> works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
> info files need an update.

Hmm, I don't think this would be desirable.  We ship updated info files
in release tarballs, and it would be desirable to install them even if
makeinfo is not available in the build environment.

> I noticed this when testing a patch posted on the gcc-patches list,
> leading to an error at 'make install' time after updating tm.texi (the
> build reported 'new text' in tm.texi and stopped).  This is because
> 'install' depends on 'install-info', which depends on
> $(DESTDIR)$(infodir)/gccint.info (among others).

Ideally, we'd detect and report info files that are out-of-date WRT
their ultimate sources, especially to catch tm.texi.in changes, but
doing so only at install time is clearly suboptimal.

I mean, if we don't have the tools to build info files, it's fine if we
skip their building, and even refrain from installing info files that
are missing or outdated, but we should install prebuilt ones if they're
available, and we should probably *not* refrain from trying to satisfy
the dependencies for info files at build time, even if it turns out that
we can't build the info files themselves.

This suggests to me that, rather than setting BUILD_INFO to the empty
string, we should set it to e.g. no-info, so that $(MAKEINFO) will not
be run because x$(BUILD_INFO) != xinfo, but so that we still get the
dependencies resolved, e.g. by making no-info depend on info.  Or maybe
make it info-check-deps, and insert that between info and its current
deps.  WDYT?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                    https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                           GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
very few check the facts.  Think Assange & Stallman.  The empires strike back

Re: [PATCH] gcc/Makefile.in: Fix install-info target if BUILD_INFO is empty

[Christophe Lyon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3618 bytes --]

Hi!

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 06:37, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hello, Christophe,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> On Feb  5, 2024, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > In order to save build time, our CI overrides BUILD_INFO="", which
> > works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
> > info files need an update.
>
> Hmm, I don't think this would be desirable.  We ship updated info files
> in release tarballs, and it would be desirable to install them even if
> makeinfo is not available in the build environment.
>
> > I noticed this when testing a patch posted on the gcc-patches list,
> > leading to an error at 'make install' time after updating tm.texi (the
> > build reported 'new text' in tm.texi and stopped).  This is because
> > 'install' depends on 'install-info', which depends on
> > $(DESTDIR)$(infodir)/gccint.info (among others).
>
> Ideally, we'd detect and report info files that are out-of-date WRT
> their ultimate sources, especially to catch tm.texi.in changes, but
> doing so only at install time is clearly suboptimal.
>
> I mean, if we don't have the tools to build info files, it's fine if we
> skip their building, and even refrain from installing info files that
> are missing or outdated, but we should install prebuilt ones if they're
> available, and we should probably *not* refrain from trying to satisfy
> the dependencies for info files at build time, even if it turns out that
> we can't build the info files themselves.
>
> This suggests to me that, rather than setting BUILD_INFO to the empty
> string, we should set it to e.g. no-info, so that $(MAKEINFO) will not
> be run because x$(BUILD_INFO) != xinfo, but so that we still get the
> dependencies resolved, e.g. by making no-info depend on info.  Or maybe
> make it info-check-deps, and insert that between info and its current
> deps.  WDYT?

I've just spent quite a bit of time looking at your suggestion, and well...

I hadn't considered the case of makeinfo missing/too old, in our use
case makeinfo is present and recent enough but we want to save a few
minutes of build time during the CI loop.

As I mentioned, we (tried to) do this by doing BUILD_INFO="" when
invoking 'make', and it took me ages to realize it is not working as
expected, because GCC's top-level Makefile does not propagate
BUILD_INFO recursively, and this conflicted with the setting of
BUILD_INFO=no-info (I wanted to try to support several values for
BUILD_INFO: info, no-info and "", where "" would disable more things,
but it seems to be too much hassle)

So, the attached small patch implements your suggestion, and works as
expected: it makeinfo is not available, we now detect problems with
tm.texi.in at build time rather than install time. OK?

Looking deeper, I realized that texi2dvi and texi2pdf belong to the
texinfo package, like makeinfo, so the dvi and pdf rules should
probably also depend on BUILD_INFO? To generate html, we call makeinfo
--html so the html rules should also depend on BUILD_INFO.  However,
unlike install-man, the install-html, install-dvi and install-pdf are
not part of the plain 'install' target, so maybe we can argue that if
someone runs 'make install-pdf' without texinfo, then too bad for him?

Thanks,

Christophe




>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                    https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
>    Free Software Activist                           GNU Toolchain Engineer
> Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
> very few check the facts.  Think Assange & Stallman.  The empires strike back

[-- Attachment #2: v3-0001-gcc-Makefile.in-Always-check-info-dependencies.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2972 bytes --]

From 7ec6ff8ead24eb7c07d011371347cf12db11faf5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:17:08 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v3] gcc/Makefile.in: Always check info dependencies

BUILD_INFO is currently a byproduct of checking makeinfo
presence/version.  INSTALL_INFO used to be defined similarly, but was
removed in 2000 (!) by commit 17db658241d18cf6db59d31bc2d6eac96e9257df
(svn r38141).

In order to save build time, our CI overrides MAKEINFO=echo, which
works when invoking 'make all' but not for 'make install' in case some
info files need an update.

I noticed this while testing a patch posted on the gcc-patches list,
leading to an error at 'make install' time after updating tm.texi (the
build reported 'new text' in tm.texi and stopped).  This is because
'install' depends on 'install-info', which depends on
$(DESTDIR)$(infodir)/gccint.info (among others).

As discussed, it is better to detect this problem during 'make all'
rather than 'make install', and we still want to detect it even if
makeinfo is not available.

This patch makes configure set BUILD_INFO=no-info in case makeinfo is
missing/too old, which effectively makes the build rules no-ops
(x$(BUILD_INFO) != xinfo), and updates Makefile.in so that 'info'
dependencies are still checked.

2024-02-10  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>

	gcc/
	* Makefile.in: Add no-info dependency.
	* configure.ac: Set BUILD_INFO=no-info if makeinfo is not
	available.
	* configure: Regenerate.
---
 gcc/Makefile.in  | 7 +++++++
 gcc/configure    | 2 +-
 gcc/configure.ac | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index 95caa54a52b..a74761b7ab3 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
@@ -3480,6 +3480,13 @@ install-no-fixedincludes:
 
 doc: $(BUILD_INFO) $(GENERATED_MANPAGES)
 
+# If BUILD_INFO is set to no-info by configure, we still want to check
+# 'info' dependencies even the build rules are no-ops because
+# BUILD_INFO != info (see %.info rule)
+ifeq ($(BUILD_INFO),no-info)
+no-info: info
+endif
+
 INFOFILES = doc/cpp.info doc/gcc.info doc/gccint.info \
             doc/gccinstall.info doc/cppinternals.info
 
diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
index 4acb254d830..771b93380bc 100755
--- a/gcc/configure
+++ b/gcc/configure
@@ -8835,7 +8835,7 @@ if test $gcc_cv_prog_makeinfo_modern = no; then
 $as_echo "$as_me: WARNING:
 *** Makeinfo is missing or too old.
 *** Info documentation will not be built." >&2;}
-  BUILD_INFO=
+  BUILD_INFO=no-info
 else
   BUILD_INFO=info
 fi
diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
index d2ed14496c1..2855545aaf0 100644
--- a/gcc/configure.ac
+++ b/gcc/configure.ac
@@ -1245,7 +1245,7 @@ if test $gcc_cv_prog_makeinfo_modern = no; then
   AC_MSG_WARN([
 *** Makeinfo is missing or too old.
 *** Info documentation will not be built.])
-  BUILD_INFO=
+  BUILD_INFO=no-info
 else
   BUILD_INFO=info
 fi
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] gcc/Makefile.in: Fix install-info target if BUILD_INFO is empty

[Alexandre Oliva]

Hello, Christophe,

On Feb 10, 2024, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:

> 	gcc/
> 	* Makefile.in: Add no-info dependency.
> 	* configure.ac: Set BUILD_INFO=no-info if makeinfo is not
> 	available.
> 	* configure: Regenerate.

Thank you, this is ok.

Now, this doesn't fix a regression, does it?

I would support putting this in for GCC 14, but I would be overstepping
my authority if I approved even such a small and well-contained
improvement patch in the current stage, so I'm approving it for stage1,
but maybe some global maintainer or release manager will chime in in
support for earlier merging? (hint, hint ;-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                    https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                           GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
very few check the facts.  Think Assange & Stallman.  The empires strike back

Re: [PATCH] gcc/Makefile.in: Fix install-info target if BUILD_INFO is empty

[Christophe Lyon]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 06:56, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hello, Christophe,
>
> On Feb 10, 2024, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> >       gcc/
> >       * Makefile.in: Add no-info dependency.
> >       * configure.ac: Set BUILD_INFO=no-info if makeinfo is not
> >       available.
> >       * configure: Regenerate.
>
> Thank you, this is ok.
>
> Now, this doesn't fix a regression, does it?

Of course not :-)

>
> I would support putting this in for GCC 14, but I would be overstepping
> my authority if I approved even such a small and well-contained
> improvement patch in the current stage, so I'm approving it for stage1,
> but maybe some global maintainer or release manager will chime in in
> support for earlier merging? (hint, hint ;-)

Thanks!

>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                    https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
>    Free Software Activist                           GNU Toolchain Engineer
> Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
> very few check the facts.  Think Assange & Stallman.  The empires strike back

Re: [PATCH] gcc/Makefile.in: Fix install-info target if BUILD_INFO is empty

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:13:49AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 06:56, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Christophe,
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2024, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > >       gcc/
> > >       * Makefile.in: Add no-info dependency.
> > >       * configure.ac: Set BUILD_INFO=no-info if makeinfo is not
> > >       available.
> > >       * configure: Regenerate.
> >
> > Thank you, this is ok.
> >
> > Now, this doesn't fix a regression, does it?
> 
> Of course not :-)
> 
> >
> > I would support putting this in for GCC 14, but I would be overstepping
> > my authority if I approved even such a small and well-contained
> > improvement patch in the current stage, so I'm approving it for stage1,
> > but maybe some global maintainer or release manager will chime in in
> > support for earlier merging? (hint, hint ;-)
> 
> Thanks!

This is ok for GCC 14 as an exception, but if any issues related to that
are found, please be prepared to revert and resubmit for GCC 15.

	Jakub

Re: [PATCH] gcc/Makefile.in: Fix install-info target if BUILD_INFO is empty

[Christophe Lyon]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 at 11:27, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:13:49AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 06:56, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Christophe,
> > >
> > > On Feb 10, 2024, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >       gcc/
> > > >       * Makefile.in: Add no-info dependency.
> > > >       * configure.ac: Set BUILD_INFO=no-info if makeinfo is not
> > > >       available.
> > > >       * configure: Regenerate.
> > >
> > > Thank you, this is ok.
> > >
> > > Now, this doesn't fix a regression, does it?
> >
> > Of course not :-)
> >
> > >
> > > I would support putting this in for GCC 14, but I would be overstepping
> > > my authority if I approved even such a small and well-contained
> > > improvement patch in the current stage, so I'm approving it for stage1,
> > > but maybe some global maintainer or release manager will chime in in
> > > support for earlier merging? (hint, hint ;-)
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> This is ok for GCC 14 as an exception, but if any issues related to that
> are found, please be prepared to revert and resubmit for GCC 15.
>
Sure!

Thanks,

Christophe

>         Jakub
>