From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3243 invoked by alias); 16 May 2007 08:03:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 3207 invoked by uid 22791); 16 May 2007 08:03:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.lu.unisi.ch (HELO smtp.lu.unisi.ch) (195.176.178.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 May 2007 08:03:40 +0000 Received: from mail.lu.unisi.ch ([195.176.178.40]) by smtp.lu.unisi.ch with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 16 May 2007 10:05:07 +0200 Received: from scientist.mobile.usilu.net ([192.168.76.145]) by mail.lu.unisi.ch over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 16 May 2007 10:02:58 +0200 Message-ID: <464ABAD4.3010409@lu.unisi.ch> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:03:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini Reply-To: bonzini@gnu.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Wilson CC: newlib@sourceware.org, Alexandre Oliva , Steve Ellcey , GCC Patches , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patch to update libtool in GCC and Src trees References: <200705111829.LAA24795@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <1178917335.26350.1189384841@webmail.messagingengine.com> <46454D61.7050509@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <46494FF1.2030304@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <464A615E.4070005@cwilson.fastmail.fm> In-Reply-To: <464A615E.4070005@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-05/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 > (3) Should the configure.in's be changed to use the 'modern' libtool > initialization macro LT_INIT([shared static win32-dll]) -- which will > need to be committed simultaneously or as an integral part of Steve's > update; or should they instead continue to use the old > 'AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL; AM_PROG_LIBTOOL' macros? I prefer to do this one step at a time, because it applies to other libraries too. > (4) Once these questions are answered: Steve, do you want to 'absorb' > this patch into your update, so it can be committed atomically? This would be best. Steve, please post your patch again in reply to this message (I've added back binutils, gdb, and gcc mailing lists) and I'll ok it. I'll look into the "standalone libtool" idea more, but this would already be quite a step forward. Paolo