Re: Patch to update libtool in GCC and Src trees

[Charles Wilson <libtool at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>]

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I would expect relatively frequent (once per month?) but absolutely 
> non-disruptive imports until the next libtool release; then, we should 
> track the corresponding stable releases.

Well, then you're already two updates behind. <g>  Steve's current patch 
is based on libtool from 20070318.  I'm not suggesting that Steve update 
his patch right now; that would be foolish since doing so would negate 
all the recent testing.

[snip]

> My only request to the libtool team, is to keep it working with 2.59 for 
> a while and not require 2.61, because that will be another relatively 
> complex update for gcc/src (though not as much as from 2.13 to 2.59).

As far as I am aware, libtool-2.0 (or libtool-2.2, if we skip the '.0' 
version for internal reasons) is slated to work with ac-2.59.  One of my 
recent changes that accidentally pulled in a 2.60 macro (AS_CASE) had to 
be rewritten for that reason.

> Please complain if this is the case, but I hope that the libtool guys 
> also don't do any disruptive changes for well-supported targets 
> (i686-linux) when the first stable release in years is in sight...

The libtool maintainers are getting more and more allergic (finally) to 
disruptive changes.  And just last week we cleared the last remaining 
release blocker explicitly listed in TODO.  There may be others, and 
we've still got a lot of regression testing to do, but...

> So far, we have only one bugfix in 2.60+ that needs to be worked around 
> because we use 2.59, and I'm confident very few (if any) will be needed.

Right, but every change in <toplevlel>/m4/ now ripples throughout every 
project in both the src and gcc trees -- so keeping that number low is 
imperative, to avoid annoying the project-level maintainers like Jeff.

--
Chuck