libffi merge

Andrew Haley
Mon Jun 8 18:33:00 GMT 2009

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Tom,
> * Tom Tromey wrote on Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:21:44PM CEST:
>>>>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues <> writes:
>> Ralf> Would standalone libffi be willing to accept into its tree
>> Ralf> configury parts that are only active in the GCC tree?
>> If this is possible, why have a separate libffi repository at all?
>> You could just tell developers to:
>>     svn co svn://
> Sorry to have given the impression, but what I meant was that I think
> it is possible to have almost zero differences in and
> files; the trees however also store generated files.
> For one, I wouldn't know to eliminate the ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS setting used
> in gcc/libffi/, leading to differences in the aclocal.m4
> file.  And the AM_ENABLE_MULTILIB in can easily be made
> conditional at the m4 level (i.e., at autoconf run time), but probably
> leaves at least some traces if only done at configure run time.

Yeah, and I don't think we need to.  A few small differences like this
IMO don't hurt at all.  Once everything is in sync, keeping it in sync
is easy.  The problem has been that there has been a fair bit of
divergence that looks to me like it was intended.  But never mind that,
we're nearly there now.


More information about the Java-patches mailing list