This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>, s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, matt at 3am-software dot com, cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk
- Date: 03 May 2005 16:57:10 -0300
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- References: <200504272055.j3RKtJfL013789@earth.phy.uc.edu><1114694844.2729.240.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com><17008.59023.361787.925505@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><jebr7z80nt.fsf@sykes.suse.de><17009.2368.986169.753001@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><200504281609.j3SG9ZD27524@makai.watson.ibm.com><20050428164727.GB30649@synopsys.com><200504281654.j3SGs0D27158@makai.watson.ibm.com>
On Apr 28, 2005, David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Joe Buck writes:
Joe> Is there a reason why we aren't using a recent libtool?
> Porting and testing effort to upgrade.
FWIW, I'd love to switch to a newer version of libtool, but I don't
have easy access to as many OSs as I used to several years ago, so
whatever testing I could offer would be quite limited.
The other issue is that I'm aware of some changes that we've adopted
in GCC libtool that are in libtool CVS mainline (very unstable), but
not in the libtool 1.5 branch (stable releases come out of it) nor in
the 2.0 branch (where the next major stable release is hopefully soon
coming from).
As much as I'd rather avoid switching from one random CVS snapshot of
libtool, now heavily patched, to another random CVS snapshot, it's
either that or waiting a long time until 2.0 is released, then
backport whatever features from libtool mainline we happen to be
relying on. Or even wait for 2.2.
At this point, it doesn't feel like switching to 1.5.16 is worth the
effort. 2.0 should be far more maintainable, and hopefully
significantly more efficient on hosts where the use of shell functions
optimized for properties of the build machine and/or the host
machine can bring us such improvement.
Thoughts?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}