This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: not-regenerated configure files?



My bad.  The patch didn't include diffs for the regeneration, and I
didn't notice.  I'll fix it.

> I was about to check in a change to gcc's libstdc++-v3/configure{,.in}
> (trivial! 8-).  I've never actually done a checkin of a regen'd file
> (e.g. configure) myself previously, and therefore after running
> autoconf I did a 'cvs diff' to make sure the changes were about what i
> expected.
> 
> In doing so, i noticed a larger-than-expected diff in the configure
> file, which i've included below.  (note the first 2 hunks...)
> 
> It looks like what happened was that you checked in the following
> change:
> 
> 2001-01-12  Laurynas Biveinis  <lauras@softhome.net>
> 
>         * acinclude.m4 (GLIBCPP_CHECK_CTYPE_SUPPORT): check for DJGPP <ctype.h>
>         (LIB_AC_PROG_CXX): replace [/\\] with [\\/] to work around older
>         bash bug.
>         * aclocal.m4: regenerated.
>         * configure.target: set os_include_dir to config/os/djgpp under DJGPP.
>         * configure: regenerated.
>         * config/os/djgpp, config/os/djgpp/bits: new directories.
>         * config/os/djgpp/bits/ctype_base.h,
>         config/os/djgpp/bits/ctype_inline.h,
>         config/os/djgpp/bits/ctype_noninline.h,
>         config/os/djgpp/bits/os_defines.h: new files.
> 
> but in fact the regenerated configure was _not_ checked in.  (There's
> no corresponding commit.)
> 
> Do you think that's correct?
> 
> If so, you might want to check in the regen'd version.  (or, if you
> think it's appropriate, I can check in the update when I do my
> checkin... but to be honest, that seems a bit fishy to me... 8-)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]