[committed] Switch boehm-gc to autoconf 2.5x

[neroden at twcny dot rr dot com (Nathanael Nerode)]

Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.  No meaningful changes in generated files.
(Autoconf 2.5x substitutes a few extra variables which are unused, but they
don't hurt.)

	* acinclude.m4: Remove old no-executables workaround;
	add new no-executables workaround.
	* aclocal.m4: Regenerate.
	* configure.in: Change prereqs to autoconf 2.57.
	* configure: Regenerate with autoconf 2.57.

Index: acinclude.m4
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/boehm-gc/acinclude.m4,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -r1.20 acinclude.m4
--- acinclude.m4	20 Feb 2004 03:35:30 -0000	1.20
+++ acinclude.m4	23 Feb 2004 20:22:27 -0000
@@ -11,92 +11,17 @@
 #
 # Original author: Tom Tromey
 
-# FIXME: We temporarily define our own version of AC_PROG_CC.  This is
-# copied from autoconf 2.12, but does not call AC_PROG_CC_WORKS.  We
-# are probably using a cross compiler, which will not be able to fully
-# link an executable.  This should really be fixed in autoconf
-# itself.
-
 AC_DEFUN(GC_CONFIGURE,
 [
 
 AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(gc, 6.1a1, no-define)
 
-# FIXME: We temporarily define our own version of AC_PROG_CC.  This is
-# copied from autoconf 2.12, but does not call AC_PROG_CC_WORKS.  We
-# are probably using a cross compiler, which will not be able to fully
-# link an executable.  This should really be fixed in autoconf
-# itself.
-
-AC_DEFUN(LIB_AC_PROG_CC,
-[AC_BEFORE([$0], [AC_PROG_CPP])dnl
-dnl Fool anybody using AC_PROG_CC.
-AC_PROVIDE([AC_PROG_CC])
-AC_CHECK_PROG(CC, gcc, gcc)
-if test -z "$CC"; then
-  AC_CHECK_PROG(CC, cc, cc, , , /usr/ucb/cc)
-  test -z "$CC" && AC_MSG_ERROR([no acceptable cc found in \$PATH])
-fi
-
-AC_PROG_CC_GNU
-
-if test $ac_cv_prog_gcc = yes; then
-  GCC=yes
-dnl Check whether -g works, even if CFLAGS is set, in case the package
-dnl plays around with CFLAGS (such as to build both debugging and
-dnl normal versions of a library), tasteless as that idea is.
-  ac_test_CFLAGS="${CFLAGS+set}"
-  ac_save_CFLAGS="$CFLAGS"
-  CFLAGS=
-  AC_PROG_CC_G
-  if test "$ac_test_CFLAGS" = set; then
-    CFLAGS="$ac_save_CFLAGS"
-  elif test $ac_cv_prog_cc_g = yes; then
-    CFLAGS="-g -O2"
-  else
-    CFLAGS="-O2"
-  fi
-else
-  GCC=
-  test "${CFLAGS+set}" = set || CFLAGS="-g"
-fi
-])
-
-LIB_AC_PROG_CC
-
-# Likewise for AC_PROG_CXX.
-AC_DEFUN(LIB_AC_PROG_CXX,
-[AC_BEFORE([$0], [AC_PROG_CXXCPP])dnl
-dnl Fool anybody using AC_PROG_CXX.
-AC_PROVIDE([AC_PROG_CXX])
-AC_CHECK_PROGS(CXX, $CCC c++ g++ gcc CC cxx cc++, gcc)
-test -z "$CXX" && AC_MSG_ERROR([no acceptable c++ found in \$PATH])
-
-AC_PROG_CXX_GNU
-
-if test $ac_cv_prog_gxx = yes; then
-  GXX=yes
-dnl Check whether -g works, even if CXXFLAGS is set, in case the package
-dnl plays around with CXXFLAGS (such as to build both debugging and
-dnl normal versions of a library), tasteless as that idea is.
-  ac_test_CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS+set}"
-  ac_save_CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS"
-  CXXFLAGS=
-  AC_PROG_CXX_G
-  if test "$ac_test_CXXFLAGS" = set; then
-    CXXFLAGS="$ac_save_CXXFLAGS"
-  elif test $ac_cv_prog_cxx_g = yes; then
-    CXXFLAGS="-g -O2"
-  else
-    CXXFLAGS="-O2"
-  fi
-else
-  GXX=
-  test "${CXXFLAGS+set}" = set || CXXFLAGS="-g"
-fi
-])
+# The autoconf 2.5x version of the no-executables hack.
+sinclude(../config/no-executables.m4)
+GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
 
-LIB_AC_PROG_CXX
+AC_PROG_CC
+AC_PROG_CXX
 
 AC_CHECK_TOOL(AS, as)
 AC_CHECK_TOOL(AR, ar)
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/boehm-gc/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.56
diff -u -r1.56 configure.in
--- configure.in	23 Feb 2004 16:19:20 -0000	1.56
+++ configure.in	23 Feb 2004 20:22:34 -0000
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 
 dnl Process this file with autoconf to produce configure.
 
-AC_PREREQ(2.13)
+AC_PREREQ(2.57)
 AC_INIT(gcj_mlc.c)
 
 # This works around the fact that libtool configuration may change LD

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/  http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/