[ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[Andrew Cagney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]

Just FYI, I've committed the attached as `obvious'.  It regenerates 
src/configure using (hopefully) the correct autoconf.  Without this the 
build barfs with the weird syntax error:

/home/scratch/PENDING/2003-02-17-tui/src/configure: 2696: Syntax error: 
word unexpected (expecting ")")

Andrew

[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 99 bytes --]

2003-02-17  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>

	* configure: Regenerate using autoconf 000227.

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[DJ Delorie]

> Just FYI, I've committed the attached as `obvious'.  It regenerates 
> src/configure using (hopefully) the correct autoconf.  Without this the 
> build barfs with the weird syntax error:

I would argue against any autoconf *snapshot* being the "right" one.
Aren't we supposed to be using the official fsf release of 2.13?  Your
change added the sitefile code, which wasn't there before, so it's not
just a bugfix - it's a feature change as well.

Plus, you need to test this "obvious" change in the gcc tree and apply
it there also - the trees are out of sync now, but they should be in
sync.

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:46:55PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Just FYI, I've committed the attached as `obvious'.  It regenerates 
> > src/configure using (hopefully) the correct autoconf.  Without this the 
> > build barfs with the weird syntax error:
> 
> I would argue against any autoconf *snapshot* being the "right" one.
> Aren't we supposed to be using the official fsf release of 2.13?  Your
> change added the sitefile code, which wasn't there before, so it's not
> just a bugfix - it's a feature change as well.

Binutils and GDB have "always" documented the use of a snapshot from
/pub/binutils on sourceware...

Not that people consistently do it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[DJ Delorie]

> Binutils and GDB have "always" documented the use of a snapshot from
> /pub/binutils on sourceware...

Yes, I know.  My policy is to use whatever version causes the smallest
diff ;-)

> Not that people consistently do it.

Nor does the gcc group use it.  In any event, I'm mosly asking to keep
the two in sync, but it strikes me as odd that an "obvious" change
changed the functionality of configure, not just the syntax error.

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[Andrew Cagney]

>> Just FYI, I've committed the attached as `obvious'.  It regenerates 
>> src/configure using (hopefully) the correct autoconf.  Without this the 
>> build barfs with the weird syntax error:
> 
> 
> I would argue against any autoconf *snapshot* being the "right" one.
> Aren't we supposed to be using the official fsf release of 2.13?  Your
> change added the sitefile code, which wasn't there before, so it's not
> just a bugfix - it's a feature change as well.

To expand on DanielJ's comment.  When fixing a GDB / BINUTILS autoconf 
botch, the final patch _always_ results in the addition of the sitefile 
stuff.  To me, having that in the diff _is_ normal.

> Plus, you need to test this "obvious" change in the gcc tree and apply
> it there also - the trees are out of sync now, but they should be in
> sync.

Should it instead be re-generated with pure 2.13?  Better first question 
though is what did GeoffK use?  (I'm guessing that it was Geoff's regen 
that broke it).

Andrew

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[DJ Delorie]

> Should it instead be re-generated with pure 2.13?

I really don't care as long as gcc and src are in sync.

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[Geoffrey Keating]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 01:21  PM, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>>> Just FYI, I've committed the attached as `obvious'.  It regenerates 
>>> src/configure using (hopefully) the correct autoconf.  Without this 
>>> the build barfs with the weird syntax error:
>> I would argue against any autoconf *snapshot* being the "right" one.
>> Aren't we supposed to be using the official fsf release of 2.13?  Your
>> change added the sitefile code, which wasn't there before, so it's not
>> just a bugfix - it's a feature change as well.
>
> To expand on DanielJ's comment.  When fixing a GDB / BINUTILS autoconf 
> botch, the final patch _always_ results in the addition of the 
> sitefile stuff.  To me, having that in the diff _is_ normal.
>
>> Plus, you need to test this "obvious" change in the gcc tree and apply
>> it there also - the trees are out of sync now, but they should be in
>> sync.
>
> Should it instead be re-generated with pure 2.13?  Better first 
> question though is what did GeoffK use?  (I'm guessing that it was 
> Geoff's regen that broke it).
>
Yes, I used pure 2.13 as downloaded from ftp.gnu.org.

I think I've worked out what happened.  I did a 'cvs update', but 
didn't think to do a 'cvs update -d', and my tree was pretty old 
(because I only use it to do this) so config/accross.m4 and 
config/acx.m4 were not included in the regeneration.  If I regenerate 
with the updated tree, I get the same configure as I got for GCC.  This 
new configure differs from the current one by not having a --site-file 
flag, and in no other interesting way.

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[Andrew Cagney]

> Yes, I used pure 2.13 as downloaded from ftp.gnu.org.
> 
> I think I've worked out what happened.  I did a 'cvs update', but didn't think to do a 'cvs update -d', and my tree was pretty old (because I only use it to do this) so config/accross.m4 and config/acx.m4 were not included in the regeneration.  If I regenerate with the updated tree, I get the same configure as I got for GCC.  This new configure differs from the current one by not having a --site-file flag, and in no other interesting way.

Ok.  I've now regenerated with pure 2.13.

Andrew

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227

[Ben Elliston]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:

  >> Aren't we supposed to be using the official fsf release of 2.13?  Your
  >> change added the sitefile code, which wasn't there before, so it's not
  >> just a bugfix - it's a feature change as well.

  Andrew> To expand on DanielJ's comment.  When fixing a GDB /
  Andrew> BINUTILS autoconf botch, the final patch _always_ results in
  Andrew> the addition of the sitefile stuff.  To me, having that in
  Andrew> the diff _is_ normal.

This is all my fault. ;-)

You must be using the autoconf from the Red Hat internal tree.  About
four years ago, I added support for --site-file to the internal
version after autoconf 2.13 was released and the patch never made it
back into the FSF sources. :-(

The best course of action would be to make sure you use pure 2.13.

Ben