This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Which autoconf for libstdc++
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <weigand at i1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:54:10 -0500
- Subject: Re: Which autoconf for libstdc++
- References: <200312182037.VAA07831@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:37:55PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to regenerate the libstdc++ configure file, but cannot
> even reproduce the current file with any autoconf version I have.
>
> doc/install.texi says libstdc++ is supposed to use autoconf-2.57,
> but the current configure file says it was generated by 2.58.
> However, even if try to regenerate using 2.58, there are still
> significant changes to the current file ...
>
> Which autoconf am I supposed to use?
Any that satisfy AC_PREREQ, which here is 2.57.
Most likely the last person to generate configure was using an autoconf
with vendor bugfixes. (It may have been me, come to think of it.) I know
Debian adds bugfixes while waiting for upstream to integrate them; I think
Red Hat does the same. I don't know about FreeBSD or SuSE offhand.
This strikes me as a Good Thing, but I don't know how others feel. Opinions?
I think someone on the gcc[-patches] list is trying to autoconfiscate
something else, and talking about 2.58. So we might want to move to that
version to reduce skew across GCC. I want to move to a new automake for
some of its fixes and features, as soon as I have time.
--
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
- Brian W. Kernighan