On Apr 28, 2005, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> Joe Buck writes: Joe> Is there a reason why we aren't using a recent libtool?
> Porting and testing effort to upgrade. FWIW, I'd love to switch to a newer version of libtool, but I don't have easy access to as many OSs as I used to several years ago, so whatever testing I could offer would be quite limited. The other issue is that I'm aware of some changes that we've adopted in GCC libtool that are in libtool CVS mainline (very unstable), but not in the libtool 1.5 branch (stable releases come out of it) nor in the 2.0 branch (where the next major stable release is hopefully soon coming from). As much as I'd rather avoid switching from one random CVS snapshot of libtool, now heavily patched, to another random CVS snapshot, it's either that or waiting a long time until 2.0 is released, then backport whatever features from libtool mainline we happen to be relying on. Or even wait for 2.2. At this point, it doesn't feel like switching to 1.5.16 is worth the effort. 2.0 should be far more maintainable, and hopefully significantly more efficient on hosts where the use of shell functions optimized for properties of the build machine and/or the host machine can bring us such improvement. Thoughts? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
