From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org,
ratmice@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Update autotools version for gdb and binutils
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:49:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a80e262a-2bb9-d3a3-ad8e-e099151219ff@polymtl.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180510030827.GA4717@bubble.grove.modra.org>
On 2018-05-09 11:08 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:46:26AM -0400, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 2018-05-08 18:12, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 May 2018, Alan Modra wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wasn't saying you must change all of binutils-gdb, let alone gcc,
>>>> just that it would be nice. binutils-gdb config/* is copied from gcc
>>>
>>> And as it's the start of development for GCC 9, it's essentially the
>>> optimal time for such a risky change in GCC.
>>>
>>> It's libtool for which an update may be the riskiest (necessary to
>>> revert
>>> libtool commit 3334f7ed5851ef1e96b052f2984c4acdbf39e20c, see
>>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00520.html>, and need to
>>> check for any local changes relative to the last libtool version merged
>>> from that aren't in the new libtool version used). I don't know whether
>>> updating other tools in GCC would require updating libtool or whether
>>> the
>>> updates can be independent.
>>
>> I attempted to convert binutils-gdb to autoconf 2.69 / automake 1.15.1 and
>> it went reasonably well. I don't know very much about gcc, so I could try
>> to do the same in the gcc tree blindly, but I don't feel confident enough to
>> test and validate the changes. So I would avoid it if I can, somebody more
>> used to building gcc could do that part.
>>
>> Could we first rule whether we still need to support combined tree builds?
>> I don't have the necessary background to judge the importance of that
>> feature, but it would basically decide whether I can update the tools used
>> in binutils-gdb in isolation from gcc.
>
> The only combined tree issue I can think of when _GCC_AUTOCONF_VERSION
> differs between gcc and binutils-gdb, is that --enable-maintainer-mode
> might attempt to run the "wrong" autoconf on one of the trees. That
> shouldn't be a show-stopper.
>
> Let's see the patches.
>
There you go.
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2018-06/msg00166.html
Simon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-15 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-04 18:44 [PATCH] gdb: Update autotools version used for gnulib import Simon Marchi
2018-05-04 19:34 ` Simon Marchi
2018-05-07 6:15 ` Alan Modra
2018-05-07 14:28 ` Simon Marchi
2018-05-08 2:30 ` Update autotools version for gdb and binutils Alan Modra
2018-05-08 20:39 ` Matt Rice
2018-05-08 22:12 ` Joseph Myers
2018-05-09 15:46 ` Simon Marchi
2018-05-10 14:40 ` Alan Modra
2018-06-15 0:49 ` Simon Marchi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a80e262a-2bb9-d3a3-ad8e-e099151219ff@polymtl.ca \
--to=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
--cc=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=ratmice@gmail.com \
--cc=simon.marchi@ericsson.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox