PATCH RFA: Build system: Use AC_SYS_LARGEFILE

[David Edelsohn]

Ian,

With Paolo's patch, my bootstrap has progressed into stage 2.
Hopefully the Flex-generated file is the only case where header files
are included in the wrong order.  Paolo's patch definitely is a step
in the right direction.

Thanks, David

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Also, given this problem, I want to try a meta-experiment: At the GCC
>> Summit, some Google developers proposed that any patch causing
>> breakage immediately be reverted, following the practice at Google.
>> Jakub mentioned on IRC that reverting the patch will break bootstrap
>> on i386-linux and other targets.  So Googlers, how do you want to
>> proceed and demonstrate your own proposed policy in action?
>
> Although I was regularly interrupted during that discussion at the
> summit, I tried a few times to say that in my opinion the policy would
> only apply during the first few days after the patch was committed.
> It's been a week for this patch now.
>
> Also there is a conflict in that this patch fixed bootstrap for
> i686-unknown-linux-gnu, a primary platform, whereas you are telling us
> that it breaks bootstrap for powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 a secondary
> platform.  The right step would have been to revert the earlier
> simple_object patch, rather than this one.
>
> So on both those grounds I'm not sure an immediate reversion of this
> patch is appropriate now, but I will do it if you ask again.
>
>
> Another approach would be the appended patch.  Does it fix the problem?
> Build maintainers, any opinion?
>
> Ian
>
>
>