X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Eric Blake <ebb9 AT byu DOT net>
Subject:  Re: Latest autoconf (2.63): problem generating libtool script when reconfiguring GCC (maybe others).
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:31:50 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 43
Message-ID:  <loom.20081209T182339-675@post.gmane.org>
References:  <2ca21dcc0812091011t544f1a12hf920d85359131ea2 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin <at> googlemail.com> writes:

> 
>     Hi gang (and Chuck in particular!)

Hi Dave, and welcome back,

> 
>   I've been having problems with the latest update to autoconf2.5 (2.63-1).
> The problem can be made to reliably appear and disappear by rolling my install
> forwards and back (to 2.61-1).

You may be better off asking on the gcc list.  Ralf Wildenhues, in particular, 
is most familiar with the effort to modernize gcc's usage of autoconf.  But for 
now, my understanding is that the entire gcc tree must be generated by 2.59 and 
nothing else, because gcc includes a lot of hacks back-ported from newer 
autoconf versions to make 2.59 work, but which might break when used side-by-
side with even newer autoconf versions where the upstream implementation has 
moved on from the state where those hacks were extraced from.

I guess it boils down to: why are you rerunning autoconf anywhere in the gcc 
tree in the first place?  Are the configuration managed configure scripts 
already in the gcc tree insufficient in some manner?  Let's tackle the root 
problem (what do you hope by regenerating java's configure) before worrying 
about the secondary problem (why isn't a version of autoconf not yet supported 
by the gcc team not working).

> 
>   I don't speak M4, and anyway this is just a distraction from the main job
> I was trying to do at the time, so this is as far as I've looked at it.  I've
> kept the autom4te.cache dirs and trace logs around, in case they'll be of any
> help.

I know quite a bit about autoconf's use of m4 (in fact, I was the one that 
built the upstream release of autoconf 2.63), but less about the gcc usage of 
autoconf.  But I personally have not attempted to build my own copy of gcc, nor 
play with their hacks to make 2.59 still work.  I'm not sure that your traces 
will help me much; again, the gcc list may be a better resource.

-- 
Eric Blake




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/