This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.
- From: Klee Dienes <klee at apple dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:55:37 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll elaborate on the
situation a bit in hopes that I can answer it anyway.
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:43 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
I don't understand this:It's a result of using the ylwrap from autoconf-1.7, which is needed
since the rules for the binutils/ parsers are automatically generated
- $(SHELL) $(YLWRAP) "$(YACC)" $(srcdir)/c-exp.y y.tab.c c-exp.tmp
+ $(SHELL) $(YLWRAP) $(srcdir)/c-exp.y y.tab.c c-exp.tmp --
isn't it independant of the switch?
Does it work now?
Automake-1.4p5 generates Makefile.in's that use the syntax:
ylwrap PROGRAM INPUT [OUTPUT DESIRED]... -- [ARGS]...
Automake-1.7 generates Makefile.in's that use the syntax:
ylwrap INPUT [OUTPUT DESIRED]... -- PROGRAM [ARGS]...
So if we use automake-1.7 to build Makefile.in binutils/ld/gas, we need
to use the ylwrap from automake-1.7 as well, which uses the new syntax
and therefore requires the change to the GDB Makefile.in. I don't
think it's possible to have a version of the GDB Makefile.in that works
with both versions.
The 3-argument form works with both autoconf-2.13 and autoconf-2.50+.
Same with this?
+ AC_DEFINE([HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE], , [Define if the `long double'
(or did the new autoconf change the interface causing a warning if
the three parameters were not present?).
Not even a warning: it blows out autoheader with an error. The new
AC_DEFINE interface deprecates the use of a template file, and
instead requires all the information to be provided by the AC_DEFINE
commands (it's particularly annoying since the warning about the
existence of a template file is about 10 lines long, ALL CAPS, and
can't be turned off with --warnings=none).
Ulgh. Same here though, does this work with autoconf 2.13++ (the
current offical autoconf)?
Is autoconf-2.13 really the current official autoconf? The autoconf
release announcements don't make that at all clear:
Or do you mean that autoconf-2.13++ is the current official version for
Binutils/BFD (in which case I withdraw my question)?
- Why should I upgrade from 2.13?
This version is no longer maintained. It does not address recent
architectures, recent compilers etc. We know that upgrading from 2.13
to 2.5x is not an easy task, especially because the Autoconf 2.13 was
extremely tolerant of incorrect macro invocations, but waiting longer
endangers the portability of your package and only delays the
conversion to newer Autoconf versions. Worse: some maintainers now
spend a significant amount of time fixing bugs in 2.13 or backporting
macros from 2.55.