From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21811 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2003 22:34:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21779 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2003 22:34:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2003 22:34:05 -0000 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (aoliva.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.1.10]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h59MY2K00519; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:34:02 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [127.0.0.1]) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h59MY1iU025487; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:34:01 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h59MY0nD025483; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:34:00 -0300 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts References: <20030609220248.GA21303@nevyn.them.org> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030609220248.GA21303@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 On Jun 9, 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 4. Specify the same thing for both > 2.13: Both will be overridden; test $CC for cross mode. > 2.57: Both will be overridden, will build natively. Except that building natively is deprecated, and autoconf people have already pushed for removing this alternative. We probably don't want to rely on it, unless the entire transition is going to be *very* short, and I don't think it can possibly be, since we're not going to have simultaneous releases of all of gcc, binutils, gdb and newlib, such that one could take all of them after the conversion and build a unified tree. > So I guess I don't see what the problem is with doing one directory at a > time. There are also libtool issues. We want to use a single libtool.m4, and you say our current libtool.m4 doesn't work with autoconf 2.5x (did I misunderstand?), and this was a problem I didn't know about before. > There are existence proofs that this (mostly!) works - > readline has been using autoconf 2.57 since its last import. I've heard people complain it was being configured as if for cross compilation even on native builds. > Could someone who thinks this won't work please speak up, before I > waste a lot of time? It should mostly work, but I still think we should pass different arguments to sub-configures depending on which version of autoconf was used to configure them. > I tested a native build on i386-linux What configure arguments? Did you pass i386-linux in the command line? Maybe one of --build or --host? The worst case to handle IMO is that of passing --build, since then autoconf 2.13 directories will guess --host from config.guess, whereas autoconf 2.57 will default host to build. If they're different, we get an inconsistent build across directories. That's why I think we should resolve the flags in the top level, and decide what to pass to each sub-directory. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer