This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: autoconf for type sizes
- To: Akim Demaille <akim at epita dot fr>
- Subject: Re: autoconf for type sizes
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:26:43 +0000 (GMT)
- cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On 13 Mar 2001, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Is there any good reason not to use CVS Autoconf? I mean, let's
> consider we release it now, or RSN. So how about moving to 2.49d,
> which I will `release' today, so that we know if we need to change
> things for GCC in 2.50.
>
> I fail to understand why people don't want to give a try to 2.49d.
> It's only delaying problems. What difference does it make to find a
> problem with 2.49d as opposed to 2.50?
GCC should avoid dependence on non-released versions of GNU software where
possible, so people can install a standard released version from
ftp.gnu.org (or possibly a binary package from a GNU/Linux distributor,
etc.) without needing special versions for GCC.
Would this Autoconf snapshot require a corresponding Automake snapshot?
Would the combination of these versions work for all parts of the GCC
tree? (libjava/HACKING lists a special automake version as being
required; would moving to CVS versions get rid of that requirement? That
would be one advantage to moving if so.)
As a first step, is it possible to fix GCC so that it will all work with
both Autoconf 2.13 and CVS Autoconf? (At least as of 2.49c, only 2.13
works.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk