Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:00:24 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Compile gcc 3.0
In-Reply-To:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGELKCEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010624125737.16761B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > Did someone submit some changes to the libtool maintainers to fix this
> > problem?  I think we should do that ASAP, since DJGPP v2.04 is still
> > far away, so we will have to live with the problem for some time.
> > Meanwhile, more and more GNU projects start using this version of
> > libtool.
> 
> That's the problem with libtool - too many versions.

You can say _that_ again!  In addition, many projects routinely import 
the latest development version of every tool they use, and thus are never 
aware of incompatibilities with older versions of those tools.  This then
breaks users who still work with older tools.

> libtool 1.4 does
> not have this test, but versions from the multi-language branch (as
> used by the gcc and gdb/binutils trees) do.  I'll submit a patch against
> CVS HEAD later today.

Thanks!

> > I think the only reasonable way to fix that would be for libtool to
> > skip this test completely for DJGPP, and use a static limit (like
> > 12KB) instead.  That's because even if we fix glob to not blow away
> 
> Will do - does this seem acceptable to you?

Yes, thanks.

- Raw text -