From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23560 invoked by alias); 24 May 2007 22:13:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 23523 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2007 22:13:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 22:13:49 +0000 Received: from relay6.apple.com (relay6.apple.com [17.128.113.36]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E9E20C3CA; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay6.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay6.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B21DD100B5; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:13:47 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807124-a42bdbb000001b27-ee-46560e1b916a Received: from [17.201.24.248] (mrs1.apple.com [17.201.24.248]) by relay6.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 7C79E10046; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:13:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1180041270.4254.1191675307@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <200705242032.NAA13355@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <1180041270.4254.1191675307@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <916D5267-3B4D-42E3-99C4-CD9A7228D466@apple.com> Cc: Steve Ellcey , toa@pop.agri.ch, jjohnstn@redhat.com, bonzini@gnu.org, newlib@sourceware.org, aoliva@redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mike Stump Subject: Re: New libtool is in the GCC and Src trees. Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:13:00 -0000 To: libtool@cwilson.fastmail.fm X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) 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/msg00385.txt.bz2 On May 24, 2007, at 2:14 PM, libtool@cwilson.fastmail.fm wrote: > Instead of fixing gcc's local copy, shouldn't this fix -- or a > better one -- instead be submitted to libtool, and then gcc can > resync? (At least in the medium-to-long term. For an immediate > and temporary fix for a broken build, as long as it IS temporary...) I agree. I'm happy to have the hack in gcc so that we don't have gcc not building and testing for the next month, but really, those options should work on the compiler. If someone is passing them to the linker, well, that's wrong. If to the compiler, I don't quite see what went wrong, and no one said what went wrong. Cleaverly, I was waiting on other recent breakages to go away before updating, so I didn't see what went wrong.