Which autoheader?

Which autoheader?

[Andrew Cagney]

Tom,

Which version of autoheader did you use when re-generating config.in? 
I'm finding that, using 000227, I can't reproduce config.in.

Andrew

Re: Which autoheader?

[Tom Tromey]

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

Andrew> Which version of autoheader did you use when re-generating
Andrew> config.in?  I'm finding that, using 000227, I can't reproduce
Andrew> config.in.

fleche. autoheader --version
Autoconf version 2.13

This is the autoconf in Red Hat Linux 7.3.
One hopes it hasn't been modified from the net release very heavily.

What is 000227?
I've never heard of an autoconf release named that way.

What does your autoheader generate for config.in?

Looking more closely, I see I checked in a config.in that includes
PACKAGE -- but the configure.in patch hasn't yet been accepted for
gdb.  This definition is bogus but harmless.  Is that what you're
seeing?  If so I can revert that patch easily.

Tom

Re: Which autoheader?

[Andrew Cagney]

> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
> Andrew> Which version of autoheader did you use when re-generating
> Andrew> config.in?  I'm finding that, using 000227, I can't reproduce
> Andrew> config.in.
> 
> fleche. autoheader --version
> Autoconf version 2.13
> 
> This is the autoconf in Red Hat Linux 7.3.
> One hopes it hasn't been modified from the net release very heavily.


> What is 000227?

Both GDB and BINUTILS are regenerated using auto ``000227'' which can be 
found in:
	ftp://sources.redhat.com/~ftp/pub/binutils/
there are also automake, gettext and libtool.  How applicable the latter 
ones are to GDB I don't know.
(this confusion is normal :-)

> I've never heard of an autoconf release named that way.
> 
> What does your autoheader generate for config.in?

Re-generating both configure.in and configure had the attached effect.

> Looking more closely, I see I checked in a config.in that includes
> PACKAGE -- but the configure.in patch hasn't yet been accepted for
> gdb.  This definition is bogus but harmless.  Is that what you're
> seeing?  If so I can revert that patch easily.

No the <sys/stat.h> et.al. checks.

I'll re-generate both and check the result in.

enjoy,
Andrew

Re: Which autoheader?

[Joel Brobecker]

> >What is 000227?
> 
> Both GDB and BINUTILS are regenerated using auto ``000227'' which can be 
> found in:
> 	ftp://sources.redhat.com/~ftp/pub/binutils/
> there are also automake, gettext and libtool.  How applicable the latter 
> ones are to GDB I don't know.
> (this confusion is normal :-)

I have been looking for where to find this version of autoconf in the
gdb internals manual, yesterday. All it says is "make sure you have the
right version, most pre-installed autoconfs are not correct". May I
suggest we add this to the gdb internals manual?

-- 
Joel

Re: Which autoheader?

[Andrew Cagney]

> What is 000227?
> 
>> 
>> Both GDB and BINUTILS are regenerated using auto ``000227'' which can be 
>> found in:
>> 	ftp://sources.redhat.com/~ftp/pub/binutils/
>> there are also automake, gettext and libtool.  How applicable the latter 
>> ones are to GDB I don't know.
>> (this confusion is normal :-)
> 
> 
> I have been looking for where to find this version of autoconf in the
> gdb internals manual, yesterday. All it says is "make sure you have the
> right version, most pre-installed autoconfs are not correct". May I
> suggest we add this to the gdb internals manual?

Sounds like a very good idea.

Andrew

PS: There is a secondary problem here - gdb and binutils both need to 
think about a major autoconf upgrade (2.5x?) but that, as they say, 
isn't your problem.

Re: Which autoheader?

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 370 bytes --]

> Sounds like a very good idea.

I am ready to check in the following patch. It is pretty obvious, but
I want to make sure there is nothing else that might be worthwhile
adding.

2002-07-09  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@gnat.com>

        * gdb.texinfo (Create a release candiate): Add the location
        where the proper version of autoconf can be retrieved.

-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: gdbint.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1007 bytes --]

Index: gdbint.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.93
diff -c -r1.93 gdbint.texinfo
*** gdbint.texinfo	27 Jun 2002 15:30:32 -0000	1.93
--- gdbint.texinfo	9 Jul 2002 23:12:49 -0000
***************
*** 5754,5760 ****
  @itemize @bullet
  @item
  Check the @code{autoconf} version carefully.  You want to be using the
! version taken from the @file{binutils} snapshot directory.  It is very
  unlikely that a system installed version of @code{autoconf} (e.g.,
  @file{/usr/bin/autoconf}) is correct.
  @end itemize
--- 5754,5761 ----
  @itemize @bullet
  @item
  Check the @code{autoconf} version carefully.  You want to be using the
! version taken from the @file{binutils} snapshot directory, which can be
! found at @uref{ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/binutils/}. It is very
  unlikely that a system installed version of @code{autoconf} (e.g.,
  @file{/usr/bin/autoconf}) is correct.
  @end itemize

Re: Which autoheader?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:16:47 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
> 
> I am ready to check in the following patch.

Thanks; please do.

Re: Which autoheader?

[Joel Brobecker]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 07:57:24AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Thanks; please do.

Thank you, committed.

-- 
Joel