autoconf for type sizes

[Joseph S. Myers]

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