From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20434 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2003 21:29:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20343 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2003 21:29:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out2.apple.com) (17.254.0.51) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2003 21:29:09 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1ILT9Tb029686; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:29:07 -0800 Received: from apple.com (vpn-scv-x3-83.apple.com [17.219.194.83]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1ILT7f23918; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:29:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:29:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: DJ Delorie , neroden@twcny.rr.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com To: Andrew Cagney From: Geoffrey Keating In-Reply-To: <3E52A3C2.90809@redhat.com> Message-Id: <2CD16685-4388-11D7-93C6-0050E4BAD278@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00383.txt.bz2 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.