Pietro Monteiro via Gcc <[email protected]> writes: > I decided to try upgrading autoconf and automake to the latest > available versions, respectively 2.73 and 1.19. I put the result in a > branch on the forge (https://forge.sourceware.org/pietro/gcc.git > branch upgrade-autotools) and I'm doing some basic testing. The patch > at the tip of that branch depends on some patches I've sent > recently[1,2,3] and a patch I haven't sent yet hat does the same as > patch [3] but for libiberty. > > Before I go any further on this and start looking into upgrading > binutils-gdb tree too I wanted to ask: > > 1) Is this something we want to do at this moment in the release cycle?
IMO yes as I don't expect much fallout, while something like libtool I'd prefer to do early in stage 1 if things work out well. > 2) If so, are the versions I picked ok? I was told developers install > autotools from source to avoid distro patches, so I went for latest. Yes. The versions in distros don't matter for this, as we check in all generated files, and we need vanilla copies anyway. > 3) What kind of testing should be done? Are other people able to help > here, specially for targets that don't use the GNU toolchain? > I think Binutils has stricter asks than GCC does, as it requires a C99 compiler. You may want to check newlib. > Thanks, > Pietro > > > [1] > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/t/#u > [2] > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/t/#u > [3] > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/t/#u sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
