This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
intl directory: gcc vs. src
- From: Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: intl directory: gcc vs. src
I sent this email earlier to just binutils and got no replies, so I
thought I would try broadening my scope:
While looking at updating the src tree to use newer versions of autoconf
I have run into the issue of the intl directory. I found some old
discussions about the two different versions (one in the src tree, one
in the gcc tree) but it doesn't look like any work was done to bring
them into alignment.
By removing the AM_PROG_INSTALL definition from aclocal.m4 I was able to
run autoconf 2.59 on the src tree intl subdir with no problems but I was
wondering if we should take the time to synchronize the GCC intl
directory with the src tree intl directory. The GCC version is already
configured with autoconf 2.59.
I did some testing by copying my GCC intl directory (plus config.rpath)
into my src tree and I was able to build binutils and gas with no
problem and with no other changes needed. This was on a system where
libintl was not installed and the intl subdir was built.
What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl? Do they use
the GCC version or the src tree version? Is there any consensus about
whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
which one should be used?