From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32495 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2007 17:27:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 32466 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2007 17:27:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:27:05 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB9B4B267; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:27:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DE04B262; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:26:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HcPXt-0006yz-06; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:26:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Steve Ellcey Cc: bonzini@gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@gcc.gnu.org, newlib@sourceware.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de, aoliva@redhat.com, fxcoudert@gmail.com, libtool@cwilson.fastmail.fm, schwab@suse.de Subject: Re: Final(?) patch to update libtool in GCC and src trees Message-ID: <20070413172648.GA26827@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Steve Ellcey , bonzini@gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@gcc.gnu.org, newlib@sourceware.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de, aoliva@redhat.com, fxcoudert@gmail.com, libtool@cwilson.fastmail.fm, schwab@suse.de References: <461F2EBD.5010700@lu.unisi.ch> <200704131707.KAA20364@hpsje.cup.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704131707.KAA20364@hpsje.cup.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00204.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:07:35AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote: > That seems like a good idea. I did the change with sinclude because the > src tree seemed to use sinclude's instead of ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS. If I am > adding ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS should I add -I ../config and -I ../bfd too and > remove all the sinclude statements from the acinclude.m4 scripts? No - feel free to try that later, if you want, but this is doing enough things at once already :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery