* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 06:26:15PM CEST: > Jack Howarth wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:17:03AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > >> > >> I wonder what the chances are of moving mainline gcc to a newer libtool > >> version? Introducing the darwin bits piecemeal would not be particularly > >> fun. > > > > You are going to fix this on gcc trunk in any case, right? > > If there is a consensus that now is not the time to update libtool in > trunk, then I will have to :)
First off, I am not in a position to decide anything here, so the following is just my two cents: I would be a bit concerned to update libtool in branch-4_3. Is this issue a regression? That said, updating in trunk is a different matter. There, the question IMHO is mostly which libtool version to update to. The git version may still have a regression or two, but 2.2.4 doesn't have the -fPIC on HP/IA patch from Steve (which would be trivial to backport of course). Alternatively GCC can wait for 2.2.6 (hopefully in the "couple of weeks at most" time frame). I haven't tried GCC trunk with libtool 2.2.4 yet, but I guess that should be reasonably smooth. (Of course I'd be willing to try.) AFAICS there are no GCC-specific changes in these files: libtool.m4 ltmain.sh lt~obsolete.m4 ltoptions.m4 ltsugar.m4 ltversion.m4 (there has been a patch to libtool.m4 but it was subsequently backed out again.) Cheers, Ralf
