Re: libtool in binutils question

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 07:54:13PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure we're ready to switch over to autoconf 2.5x, but I don't
> see a problem in using automake 1.5.  The autoconf 2.5x issues are the
> most relevant ones that have been causing me to postpone this task.

I tried to make the gcc repository ready for autoconf 2.5x last May,
you might remember, and didn't succeed.  The major trouble was with
language runtime libraries.  The kluge to avoid having AC_PROG_CC barf
because we're in the middle of putting together the cross compiler it
tries to use, doesn't work anymore with 2.5x.  The suggested
replacement (AC_NO_EXECUTABLES) prohibits you from using link tests
anywhere in the same script.  Several of the language runtimes _need_
link tests.

see thread at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-05/msg01712.html,
or jump to the conclusions,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-05/msg01986.html.

The situation may have improved since, for example, if libtool.m4 now
wants autoconf 2.50, presumably it works with 2.5x.

I would like to see us require 2.5x autoconf if only because it will
let us clean up gcc/configure.in considerably.  But we aren't ready
yet.  (Debian's autoconf packages let 2.13 and 2.50 coexist, and
detect which version a script needs when you run autoconf.  If that
were an upstream feature of 2.50 I'd have started on gcc/configure.ac
long ago.)

zw