Re: Update autotools version for gdb and binutils

[Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>]

On 2018-05-08 18:12, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2018, Alan Modra wrote:
>
> > I wasn't saying you must change all of binutils-gdb, let alone gcc,
> > just that it would be nice.  binutils-gdb config/* is copied from gcc
>
> And as it's the start of development for GCC 9, it's essentially the
> optimal time for such a risky change in GCC.
>
> It's libtool for which an update may be the riskiest (necessary to 
> revert
> libtool commit 3334f7ed5851ef1e96b052f2984c4acdbf39e20c, see
> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00520.html>, and need to
> check for any local changes relative to the last libtool version merged
> from that aren't in the new libtool version used).  I don't know 
> whether
> updating other tools in GCC would require updating libtool or whether 
> the
> updates can be independent.

I attempted to convert binutils-gdb to autoconf 2.69 / automake 1.15.1 
and it went reasonably well.  I don't know very much about gcc, so I 
could try to do the same in the gcc tree blindly, but I don't feel 
confident enough to test and validate the changes.  So I would avoid it 
if I can, somebody more used to building gcc could do that part.

Could we first rule whether we still need to support combined tree 
builds?  I don't have the necessary background to judge the importance 
of that feature, but it would basically decide whether I can update the 
tools used in binutils-gdb in isolation from gcc.

Simon