This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Patch to update libtool in GCC and Src trees
- From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>
- To: Charles Wilson <libtool at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>
- Cc: newlib at sourceware dot org, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:03:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: Patch to update libtool in GCC and Src trees
- References: <200705111829.LAA24795@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <1178917335.26350.1189384841@webmail.messagingengine.com> <46454D61.7050509@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <orbqgoge6k.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <46494FF1.2030304@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <464A615E.4070005@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
- Reply-to: bonzini at gnu dot org
(3) Should the configure.in's be changed to use the 'modern' libtool
initialization macro LT_INIT([shared static win32-dll]) -- which will
need to be committed simultaneously or as an integral part of Steve's
update; or should they instead continue to use the old
'AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL; AM_PROG_LIBTOOL' macros?
I prefer to do this one step at a time, because it applies to other
libraries too.
(4) Once these questions are answered: Steve, do you want to 'absorb'
this patch into your update, so it can be committed atomically?
This would be best. Steve, please post your patch again in reply to
this message (I've added back binutils, gdb, and gcc mailing lists) and
I'll ok it.
I'll look into the "standalone libtool" idea more, but this would
already be quite a step forward.
Paolo