From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23930 invoked by alias); 24 May 2007 16:00:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 23817 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2007 15:59:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:59:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4OFvj9L012827; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:57:45 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4OFvfoD025104; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:57:43 -0400 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OFvfak021325; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:57:41 -0400 Received: from [172.16.14.106] (to-dhcp6.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.106]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B21800087; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:57:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4655B5F8.2000102@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:00:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070212) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Ellcey Cc: bonzini@gnu.org, libtool@cwilson.fastmail.fm, newlib@sourceware.org, aoliva@redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patch to update libtool in GCC and Src trees References: <200705241542.IAA06963@hpsje.cup.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <200705241542.IAA06963@hpsje.cup.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00372.txt.bz2 Steve Ellcey wrote: >> I don't remember seeing the actual patch. This is the one proposed that >> does not use libtool unless we ask for it so it was definitely my >> preference. IIRC, the proposal was to change the way we set up libtool >> and it added a few macros prior to the check for libtool-used. If that >> is correct, there should be no problem. >> >> -- Jeff J. >> > > Yes, that is the one. Here is a pointer to the patch I am going to > check in today. > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-05/msg00247.html > > Steve Ellcey > sje@cup.hp.com > Thanks. Looks fine. -- Jeff J.