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]

Re: [ob] Regenerate src/configure with 000227


On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 01:21  PM, Andrew Cagney wrote:

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.
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.

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.
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).

Yes, I used pure 2.13 as downloaded from ftp.gnu.org.

I think I've worked out what happened. I did a 'cvs update', but didn't think to do a 'cvs update -d', and my tree was pretty old (because I only use it to do this) so config/accross.m4 and config/acx.m4 were not included in the regeneration. If I regenerate with the updated tree, I get the same configure as I got for GCC. This new configure differs from the current one by not having a --site-file flag, and in no other interesting way.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]