Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-12-05T21:03:24Z

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:55:37PM -0500, Klee Dienes wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >>On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:43 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>>I don't understand this:
> >>>- $(SHELL) $(YLWRAP) "$(YACC)" $(srcdir)/c-exp.y y.tab.c c-exp.tmp
> >>>-- $(YFLAGS)
> >>>+ $(SHELL) $(YLWRAP) $(srcdir)/c-exp.y y.tab.c c-exp.tmp --
> >>>"$(YACC)" $(YFLAGS)
> >>>isn't it independant of the switch?
> >>>
> >>It's a result of using the ylwrap from autoconf-1.7, which is needed
> >>since the rules for the binutils/ parsers are automatically generated
> >>by automake.
> >>
> >Does it work now?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll elaborate on the
> situation a bit in hopes that I can answer it anyway.
>
> Automake-1.4p5 generates Makefile.in's that use the syntax:
>
> ylwrap PROGRAM INPUT [OUTPUT DESIRED]... -- [ARGS]...
>
> Automake-1.7 generates Makefile.in's that use the syntax:
>
> ylwrap INPUT [OUTPUT DESIRED]... -- PROGRAM [ARGS]...
>
> So if we use automake-1.7 to build Makefile.in binutils/ld/gas, we need
> to use the ylwrap from automake-1.7 as well, which uses the new syntax
> and therefore requires the change to the GDB Makefile.in. I don't
> think it's possible to have a version of the GDB Makefile.in that works
> with both versions.

But, to clarify even further: if we use the new ylwrap from Automake
1.7, regardless of what version of _automake_ we are using, then Klee's
patch to gdb/Makefile.in will work.

This means that all directories which use both automake and ylwrap must
be converted at the same time however.

> The 3-argument form works with both autoconf-2.13 and autoconf-2.50+.
>
> Is autoconf-2.13 really the current official autoconf? The autoconf
> release announcements don't make that at all clear:
>
> Or do you mean that autoconf-2.13++ is the current official version for
> Binutils/BFD (in which case I withdraw my question)?

Right, that's what Andrew meant, I think.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer