From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13756 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2003 21:16:19 -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 13742 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2003 21:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2003 21:16:18 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87EF2D37; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:21:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E52A3C2.90809@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DJ Delorie Cc: neroden@twcny.rr.com, geoffk@apple.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227 References: <3E511936.7000106@redhat.com> <200302171746.h1HHkt317158@envy.delorie.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00379.txt.bz2 >> 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). Andrew