* Jack Howarth wrote on Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 03:22:56AM CET: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 11:08:49PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > > The Libtool update would fix a couple of bugs, one of which is important > > > for mi...@least. Any chance this could still be considered? > > > > I think this is up to you - I can't asses the benefits or risks > > of the change.
Well, the benefits are on the table: fixes important for MinGW, cross compiles for HP-UX, shared libraries with binutils on AIX, less noise and thus (hopefully) less conflicts with future merges of configure scripts; the risks are build breakage on some systems or with some setups (that are not exercised with the Libtool test suite), and some developers rightly being angry at me for such a late change. I can only offer to help with any breakage as resources permit (latency < 24hrs for the next 8 days at least). I expect any serious breakage to show up within the following time GCC is bootstrapped on the system in question. > Actually, I would be very interested in testing the proposed libtool patch > to verify that this new change works as advertised (coupled with the pending > dsymutil fixes...http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00094.html > and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00096.html). This should > finally > fix up darwin for properly debugging in libstdc++ and libjava which both > use such libtool convenience archives. Do you need anything to test the patch before it is applied, or did you mean to test it when it has been applied? (To test this patch that does not include regenerated files, apply it, then find $srcdir -name configure | while read f; do (cd $(dirname $f) && autoconf) done then build. Thanks, Ralf
