Re: Patch to update libtool in GCC and Src trees

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > (1) That's a fairly major change
>
> Agreed.
>
> > (2) Even if libtool supports building shared libraries on platform X, 
> > newlib's support for shared is deliberately limited to just 
> > i*86-linux. Unless you want to change /that/ too, you'll need to 
> > implement some mechanism of completely *disabling* --enable-shared for 
> > all but i*86-linux, while still defaulting to --enable-shared 
> > --enable-static on linux.
>
> case "$target" in
>   i*86-*-linux*) ;;
>   *) enable_shared=no ;;
> esac
>
> Paolo
>
> > (3) What does Jeff J. think about this?
>
> Of course he has to make the final call.

I definitely prefer Chuck's alternative.  Libtool just adds unnecessary 
complexity to the vast majority of existing newlib builds.

> > (1) make the Makefile.am changes I detailed (all 75 or only 15)
> > (2) modify the 15 configure.in's with
> >     (a) _LT_DECL_SED outside the existing 'if' -- /if/ that works
>
> If it works, I would very much prefer that, because running useless 
> libtool tests is not the best thing to do (especially given the time it 
> takes).
>
> >     (b) or unconditionally call LT_INIT like I did, but also add
> >         AC_NO_EXECUTABLES
> > (3) re-aclocal, re-automake, re-autoconf yadda yadda
>
> There's another possibility, actually, which is to import *the libtool 
> tree* in the gcc/src tree from upstream and build it as a target module. 
>  Then, instead of having each library build its own libtool, use the 
> common one.
>
> I wonder if this is not a much much better idea.  If I have time, I may 
> tinker with it too...

Great.

> Paolo