[RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.

[Zack Weinberg]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On Dec  5, 2002, Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>> AC_NO_EXECUTABLES has two effects: (1) it disables the equivalent of
>> AC_PROG_CC_WORKS, which is what we need.  But, (2) it causes autoconf
>> to barf if an AC_TRY_LINK test appears anywhere in the script being
>> generated.
>
> Please tell me why (2) doesn't make sense.
>
> If AC_PROG_CC_WORKS can't even link a do-nothing program, how would
> you expect to get any useful results from AC_TRY_LINK?

Because libstdc++'s AC_TRY_LINK tests are only executed in a situation
where AC_PROG_CC_WORKS would have succeeded (i.e. a native compilation).

zw