This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Update GCC to autoconf 2.69, automake 1.15.1

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:12 AM Thomas Koenig <> wrote:
> Am 31.10.18 um 04:26 schrieb Joseph Myers:
> > This patch (diffs to generated files omitted below) updates GCC to use
> > autoconf 2.69 and automake 1.15.1.
> I think this should fix PR 82856.  Maybe you could confirm that this
> restores automake functionality with perl 5.6.26, and mention the PR
> in the ChangeLog.
> >
> > warning: source file 'caf/single.c' is in a subdirectory,
> > but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
> > automake: warning: possible forward-incompatibility.
> > automake: At least a source file is in a subdirectory, but the 'subdir-objects'
> > automake: automake option hasn't been enabled.  For now, the corresponding output
> > automake: object file(s) will be placed in the top-level directory.  However,
> > automake: this behaviour will change in future Automake versions: they
> > will
> > automake: unconditionally cause object files to be placed in the same subdirectory
> > automake: of the corresponding sources.
> > automake: You are advised to start using 'subdir-objects' option throughout your
> > automake: project, to avoid future incompatibilities.
> >
> > I think it's best for the relevant maintainers to add subdir-objects
> > and do any other associated changes needed.  In some cases
> > the paths in the warnings involved ../; I don't know if that adds any
> > extra complications to the use of subdir-objects.
> I'm not an automake expert, but I hope to be able to figure out
> what is needed.  If not, I guess I'll just ask :-)
> What is the plan for the previous branches?  Currently, it is necessary
> to keep around a special version of automake etc for
> --enable-maintainer-mode to work.  Backporting a patch which
> involves regeneration of files in libgfortran/generated from
> the files in libgfortan/m4 would then require keeping two versions
> of the relevant tools around, and switching between them.

Does the regeneration really involve the automake/autoconf part
or would it be feasible to decouple it from --enable-maintainer-mode?

> Would it make sense to backport because of this?

I don't think so.


> Thanks for your efforts!
> Regards
>         Thomas

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