This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status of gcc/intl and src/intl?
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:33:05 -0700
- Subject: Re: Status of gcc/intl and src/intl?
- References: <200309130222.h8D2MCI5030218@duracef.shout.net>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain <email@example.com> writes:
> Hi Zack,
> I saw your message about an intl/ update:
> Here's my story. Gdb has a build problem, PR gdb/857, which is about
> intl/Makefile.in and the lack of a few files in the 'distclean' rule. I
> started working on this and I noticed that gcc/intl is a lot newer than
Yeah. Updating src/intl to match gcc/intl is on my list but I am not
going to get to it soon.
> My plan is to add a few lines of kludgery to the top level src-release
> file and not touch src/intl/Makefile.in at all, on the grounds that
> src/intl is about to get a big upgrade soon anyways. The specific
> kludgery is a couple of lines like 'rm -f intl/config.cache' and 'rm -f
> intl/stamp-h'. I think this will be benign if an upgrade happens.
I'm not familiar with src-release so I have no idea whether this will
be a problem. What will happen eventually is, gcc/intl will be copied
over to src/intl, and everyone's configure scripts will be modified to
match. Testing this change is a bit daunting, which is one of the
reasons I haven't gotten to it. Help would be appreciated. (Note I
am moving, so I may not respond to mail in a timely fashion for the
next week or so.)