This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: On libtool patches for 3.0.1
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Subject: Re: On libtool patches for 3.0.1
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:57:07 -0700
- cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>, Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
--On Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:31:16 AM -0300 Alexandre Oliva
<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> I couple of patches have been posted for libtool files since the 3.0
> release, and I'd like to somehow accept them for 3.0.1, but we have a
> bit of a problem.
I'm not sure I fully understand all the issues, but I'll try to give
some guidance. In general, hacks that would be totally unreasonable
for the mainline are OK for the 3.0 branch because they're inherently
temporary. Therefore, I don't object to changes there that aren't
direct imports from the libtool repository. I don't understand why
we would change machine-generated files, but maybe you mean that
there are files in the GCC tree that are machine-generated from
somewhere else, and then imported into GCC. It's still fine to
change the files in GCC, in this case.
I would put the changes on the mainline, too, so that in case we
don't manage to get the new libtool before 3.1, we don't regress.
We should, of course, try to make sure that equivalent fixes make
it into the new libtool. And, I agree, that we should import the
new libtool on the mainline when it is ready.
Did that help?
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com