[2.90.9] planning for the next release

[Martin v. Loewis]

> I'm sure the configure script hacking would be the smallest part of
> this scenario. Most of the v3 configure work is already done. A
> patch would certainly be interesting reading--are you suggesting
> cross posting it to gcc@gcc.gnu.org?

Sure. It probably needs discussion in the GCC team, but I feel that
there would be no objections if people still had the choice of using
the old library.

> This might be a pain in the neck to do in CVS though, so maybe something like
> 
> libstdc++-v3
> libstdc++
> libio

That is what I thought of.

> And then soft links to "libstd++-build" and "libio-build" or
> something. I dunno.

How about adding either libstdc++ or libstdc++-v3 to
TARGET_CONFIGDIRS, depending on the top-level configure option? You
would not need any links, it would just configure either one or the
other library. In Cygnus configure, it would come down to modifying
target_libs depending on the configure option. You could even arrange
to not build libio if libstdc++-v3 is build. Something like

if [ "${enable_libstdcxx_v3}" = "yes" ] ; then
	libstdcxx_version="-v3"
fi

target_libs="target-libiberty \
		target-libgloss \
		target-newlib \
		target-libio${libstdcxx_version} \
		target-librx \
		target-libstdc++${libstdcxx_version} \
		target-libg++ \
		target-libf2c \
		target-libchill \
		target-libjava \
		target-zlib \
		target-boehm-gc \
		target-qthreads \
		target-libobjc"

might even work (without testing)

Martin