From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29838 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2006 21:06:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 29825 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2006 21:06:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:06:02 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GBHj6-0000Mr-6P; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:06:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Steve Ellcey Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patch to update top-level config to autoconf 2.59 Message-ID: <20060810210600.GA1378@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Steve Ellcey , binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060810202957.GA31776@nevyn.them.org> <200608102102.OAA28953@hpsje.cup.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200608102102.OAA28953@hpsje.cup.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 02:02:46PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > Why was the AS_FOR_TARGET change necessary? > > Because autoconf 2.59 gave an error if I didn't change the name. > > | [hpsje] $ autoconf > | configure.in:2299: error: possibly undefined macro: AS_FOR_TARGET > | If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. > | See the Autoconf documentation. > > It looked like the common fix for this was to rename it to > GAS_FOR_TARGET. I see that all these files are shared, I didn't realise > that. I thought that GCC was already configuring everything with 2.59 > but I see they still use 2.13 for the toplevel configure and have the > same configure.in (and Makefiles) as the src tree. Oh well. The problem is that it doesn't necessarily have to be gas - it could be the native assembler. GCC has: m4_pattern_allow([AS_FOR_TARGET])dnl So it's probably better (and a smaller patch) to just do that. > Yes, I expect so. I guess this last bit will have to wait for a while. Hopefully, not much longer. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery