Re: autoconf for libiberty question

[msokolov at ivan dot Harhan dot ORG (Michael Sokolov)]

Ian Lance Taylor <ian@zembu.com> wrote:

> As far as the binutils are concerned, the master sources for libiberty
> are in the gcc tree.  Therefore, the correct approach is to get the
> patches into gcc [...]

I know. I have already made the proper autoconf-based patch and sent it to
gcc-patches@gnu.gcc.org. No response so far, though. Any idea on how eager are
the gcc folks to accept patches and how long does it usually take?

> and then (if necessary) move them over to the
> binutils (if you don't, they will eventually be moved over in any
> case).

Yeah, I'm not worried about that part. For my development I check out each
piece from its master repo, put them all under one top-level infrastructure
(configure, etc.) from the src repo, and build in one fell swoop. As for normal
users using official releases, I'd assume that merges like libiberty gcc=>
binutils are always done at the time of each release, right?

> I don't know which version of autoconf is used for gcc and libiberty.
> By the looks of things, it is simply autoconf 2.13.

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion. I used 2.13 to regenerate the files on my
machine and submitted the patch without the generated files, only noting in the
ChangeLog entry that they are to be regenerated, figuring that the regeneration
has to be done at the time of the check-in anyway.

--
Michael Sokolov		Harhan Engineering Laboratory
Public Service Agent	International Free Computing Task Force
			International Engineering and Science Task Force
			615 N GOOD LATIMER EXPY STE #4
			DALLAS TX 75204-5852 USA

Phone: +1-214-824-7693 (Harhan Eng Lab office)
E-mail: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA TCP/SMTP) (UUCP coming soon)