configure.{in -> ac} rename (commit 35eafcc71b) broke in-tree binutils building of gcc

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM,  <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Alan, gcc maintainers,
>>>
>>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>>> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways. Quite
>>> a bit of digging resulted in me finding that gcc/configure.ac looks for
>>> configure.in in a number of binutils subtrees.
>>
>> I haven't used combined tree builds of binutils+gcc for a very long
>> time, so this issue wasn't on my radar at all, sorry.
>>
>>> Globally replacing
>>> configure.in by configure.[ai][cn] appears to address this, but I'm not
>>> sure whether that would be an acceptable change
>>
>> Certainly sounds reasonable.
>>
>>> (there doesn't seem
>>> to be a fix for this in gcc trunk either, which I originally expected I could
>>> simply backport).
>>
>> The configure.in->configure.ac rename happened over a year ago so I
>> guess this shows that not too many people use combined binutils+gcc
>> builds nowadays.  I've always found combined binutils+gcc builds not
>> worth the bother compared to simply building and installing binutils
>> first, as Jim suggests.
>
>
> Combined builds are very useful for doing Candian crosses.  Though it might just because my build script has been doing a combined build now for 5 years.  Also I noticed it was broken and ignored it as my script did not break, only when I did a native build did it break.
>

We should fix gcc/configure.ac.


-- 
H.J.