[PATCH] Update gnulib to current trunk

[Pedro Alves]

On 8/23/20 10:37 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
> 
> Christian seems to be busy these days, so I thought I could try to
> help get this one in.
> 
> I'm going to quote the whole discussion below hoping this helps make it
> easier for you to remember the details of this thread. which is about
> updating gnulib to a newer version in order to bring in a change that
> Eli wants for support of mingw.org's version of MinGW. If we wanted
> a quick summary, my understanding is that following: After a closer
> inspection of the delta in terms of modules this update causes,
> we found that:
> 
>   - btowc gets added, for which you say that we should keep an eye
>     on it wrt the logic in gdb/gdb_wchar.h, but I understand
>     we should be OK for now;
> 
>   - We lose gettimeofday, and decided to add it.
> 
>   - We lose sys_time, and you suggested that the easiest is probably
>     to accept that for now.
> 
> I have taken Christian's patch, and rebased it (there was one conflict
> in gnulib/configure, which I resolved by regenerating it), and then
> modified it to add gettimeofday.
> 
> As it happens, when doing that, we get sys_time back, as well as
> localtime-buffer too. So, even though we said we could wait and
> do nothing about it, the question becomes moot.
> 
> Attached is the diff between Christian's patch (once rebased).
> I am attaching those even though this is not the patch I am proposing
> because it should allow everyone to see the actual effect of adding
> gettimeofday back, and see that the new version does bring what we want
> and only what we want. It's only a few files, but still rather large
> because of the files being added (back). So I made two versions:
> One with the new files being elided, and the second containing the full
> diff, but gziped.  Hopefully that'll fit within the mailinglist's
> maximum email size.
> 
> I will send the actuall full patch, which consists of Christian
> and my changes combined, with the ChangeLog updated accordingly,
> in a separate email, also in an effort to stay under the maximum
> email size limit.
> 
> Does this look OK to you now?

I'm not very interested in looking at the full diff -- I trust that
it's OK.  The overall set of modules that is added / removed was
my main interest, and what you say above sounds good.

Patch is OK with me.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves