Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
When this patch went into 4.0, Paolo didn't regenerate the top levelYou're right. I was being conservative and typed the "cvs ci" filenames manually, but in this case there was no need because I worked off a fresh checkout. Sorry.
configure, although the ChangeLog claims he did:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-04/msg00842.html
The patch should also be applied to mainline, since the "break"Yes, I was. But it looks like build machinery maintainers are being busy and toplevel patches are largely unnoticed.
problem exists there too. I'm not sure why it wasn't, but perhaps
your "OK for 4.0.0" didn't specify mainline and Paolo was being
conservative. I think we should fix it there also.
Paolo