This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[committed] [patch 0/27] Use automake-1.11.6 across the tree
- From: Michael Haubenwallner <michael dot haubenwallner at ssi-schaefer dot com>
- To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- Cc: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>, Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:46:51 +0200
- Subject: [committed] [patch 0/27] Use automake-1.11.6 across the tree
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5548E9C3 dot 1090408 at ssi-schaefer dot com>
On 05/05/2015 06:03 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> Hello build machinery maintainers,
>
> following up
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/331902/focus=334462
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/332160
>
> On 01/25/2015 08:42 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 2015-01-04 20:20:40 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner <michael.haubenwallner@ssi-schaefer.com> wrote:
>
>>> Updating to 1.14 might require more work like updating some .in
>>> files as well. I've seen automake-1.11 being explicitly used, so for
>>> now we really want 1.11.6 eventually?
>>
>> Probably yes, we may want to stick to a well-known version. (Maybe
>> another way could be to really upgrade to current versions, with is, I
>> guess, more work than just sync files and rerun. That might be
>> fruitful (ie. to not stick to older versions), but this is a change I
>> don't see in the current stage.)
>>
>> To cut a long story short:
>>
>> * Do we actually see *problems* from the version inconsistencies
>> already introduced by me and/or others?
>
> There's a problem for gcc-developers: When I need to import a libtool
> upstream patch, by its nature it affects each library. As I prefer to
> avoid mixing these diffs with an automake version change in one commit,
> I need to bootstrap different libraries with different automake versions.
>
> Even if I probably need to split this change into one commit per library
> anyway, the need for multiple automake versions still feels pointless.
Using automake-1.11.6 across the tree (except for libgo) is committed.
>> * ...and: Do we want to stick to known versions, or update if?
>> (Probably not in such a late stage, though...)
>
> Now that gcc-5 is out, what about an automake-1.11.6 update for gcc-6?
>
> BTW, the actual commands I use to re-run automake for everything (I found) is:
Commands used:
$ /src/gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/install \
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,go,java,lto,objc,obj-c++,ada \
--enable-liboffloadmic=target \
--enable-libmpx \
--enable-libada \
--enable-maintainer-mode
$ make bootstrap
Reverted changes to libffi/doc/version.texi (would bump VERSION 3.9999).
Thanks!
/haubi/