Hi Ralf, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * 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?
I have no intention of asking that libtool be updated in the 4.3 branch. I do not consider it a regression, it has always been broken on Mac OS X when using dwarf2. > 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.) I am also 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.) Good to know. Thanks. Peter -- Peter O'Gorman http://pogma.com
