This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 01:21 PM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
Yes, I used pure 2.13 as downloaded from ftp.gnu.org.To expand on DanielJ's comment. When fixing a GDB / BINUTILS autoconf botch, the final patch _always_ results in the addition of the sitefile stuff. To me, having that in the diff _is_ normal.Just FYI, I've committed the attached as `obvious'. It regenerates src/configure using (hopefully) the correct autoconf. Without this the build barfs with the weird syntax error:
I would argue against any autoconf *snapshot* being the "right" one. Aren't we supposed to be using the official fsf release of 2.13? Your change added the sitefile code, which wasn't there before, so it's not just a bugfix - it's a feature change as well.
Should it instead be re-generated with pure 2.13? Better first question though is what did GeoffK use? (I'm guessing that it was Geoff's regen that broke it).Plus, you need to test this "obvious" change in the gcc tree and apply it there also - the trees are out of sync now, but they should be in sync.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |