On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:07:47 GMT, Julian Waters <jwat...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I have verified that this works fine in the Oracle internal CI. >>> >>> Erik's point still stands: >>> >>> > I still think it would be prudent to verify this patch with all the >>> > currently accepted versions of autoconf (2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72). >>> >>> I think the easiest way to achieve this is to checkout the autoconf at >>> these versions, and build it yourself. Iirc it was quite easy to build >>> autoconf (anything else would be a shame and very bad PR for the project! >>> :-o). >>> >>> I'm hoping you are willing to do this, since I believe this is a superior >>> solution and I'd like to see it in mainline. (Otherwise, let me know and >>> I'll try to squeeze in doing it.) >> >> It's actually even easier to do on Windows than it might appear, since >> MinGW's pacman system has caches that contain past package versions. I >> wouldn't have to build it at all in fact, all I'd have to do is downgrade my >> autoconf to past versions (I think I'm currently on 2.71). I know you're >> probably very busy right now, so I'll spare you the chore of having to do >> that by testing it on my end. That said, should I test autoconf on all >> platforms too? That aside, I'm still a little unhappy that there is no >> formal way to unregister an AC_DEFUN macro though :( >> >> By the way, I've left you something in the mail. Hope you have some time to >> check it out! > >> @TheShermanTanker I think this is essentially done. All that needs are the >> testing. Can you do it or do you want help with it? > > I'm able to do so myself, I've just been busy with university so far. I've > only tested 2.71 and 2.72 though, 2.69 and 2.70 might still need testing. I'm > still unhappy that I can't properly undefine the macros, as a side tangent Ok. I have now tested this patch with autoconf 2.69 and 2.70, and afaict it works just fine. So this is finally ready to integrate. @TheShermanTanker Will you have the honors? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17401#issuecomment-2413717398
