This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Update top level libtool files
- From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:45:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC: Update top level libtool files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87mv4zcjlo.fsf@redhat.com>
On 2017.10.10 at 12:45 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I would like to update the top level libtool files (libtool.m4,
> ltoptions.m4, ltsugar.m4, ltversion.m4 and lt~obsolete.m4) used by
> gcc, gdb and binutils. Currently we have version 2.2.7a installed in
> the source trees and I would like to switch to the latest official
> version: 2.4.6.
>
> The motivation for doing this is an attempt to reduce the number of
> patches being carried round by the Fedora binutils releases.
> Currently one of the patches there is to fix a bug in the 2.2.7a
> libtool which causes it to select /lib and /usr/lib as the system
> library search paths even for 64-bit hosts. Rather than just bring
> this patch into the sources however, I thought that it would be better
> to upgrade to the latest official libtool release and use that
> instead.
>
> I have successfully run an x86_64 gcc bootstrap, built and tested lots
> of different binutils configurations, and built and run an x86_64 gdb.
> One thing that worries me though, is why hasn't this been done before?
> Ie is there a special reason for staying with the old 2.2.7a libtool ?
> If not, then does anyone object to my upgrading the gcc, gdb and
> binutils mainline sources ?
Last time I've looked in 2011, libtool's "with_sysroot" was not
compatible with gcc's. So a naive copy doesn't work. But reverting
commit 3334f7ed5851ef1 in libtool before copying should work.
--
Markus