update configury for FreeBSD 10 on gcc-4.6 branch

On 19.11.11 23:15, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>> the below patch updates the configury to be able to build gcc-4.6 on
>> FreeBSD 10. I attach only the source files which have changed.
>
>> libjava/libltdl/acinclude.m4
>
> I don't see this one in your ChangeLog?

Sigh, too many things in parallel:

>
> Merging upstream changes from libtool that unbreak bootstrap on a
> primary platform and are completely specific and isolated to that
> platform should always be fine.
>
> You did not indicate how you tested it, but assuming a full bootstrap
> and testsuite run (which platform exactly?) please go ahead.

Well, here I'm a bit sloppy, I always test with a full bootstrap and 
submit the results. I did this for this patch a few weeks ago for trunk.
I'll resubmit new results as soon as the tests completed.

>
> Thanks!
>
>> Index: libjava/configure.ac
>> ===================================================================
>> --- libjava/configure.ac	(revision 181511)
>> +++ libjava/configure.ac	(working copy)
>> @@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@
>>        *-*-cygwin*)
>>   	# Don't set THREADLIBS here.  Cygwin doesn't have -lpthread.
>>   	;;
>> -     *-*-freebsd[[1234]]*)
>> +     *-*-freebsd[[234]].*)
>>   	# Before FreeBSD 5, it didn't have -lpthread (or any library which
>>   	# merely adds pthread_* functions) but it does have a -pthread switch
>>   	# which is required at link-time to select -lc_r *instead* of -lc.
>
> This is a separate change from the libtool import, right?  Ever since
>
>    2011-02-02  Gerald Pfeifer<gerald@pfeifer.com>
>
>          * config.gcc (*-*-freebsd[12], *-*-freebsd[12].*, *-*-freebsd*aout*):
>          Move to the unsupported targets list.
>
> GCC per se does not support FreeBSD 2.x any more.  On the libtool side,
> we should stick with what we get from upstream.  For other things, like
> the above, I suggest to remove both 1 and 2.

Yes, this is separate from the libtool import. I thought I could 
integrate this one too since I have to regen configure anyway.
Will update.

> Can you also make the libjava change on trunk, copying java-patches@ ?

Yes.

Thanks for the feedback.
Andreas

On 19.11.11 23:33, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 19.11.11 23:15, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>>> the below patch updates the configury to be able to build gcc-4.6 on
>>> FreeBSD 10. I attach only the source files which have changed.
>>
>>> libjava/libltdl/acinclude.m4
>>
>> I don't see this one in your ChangeLog?
>
> Sigh, too many things in parallel:
>
> Index: libltdl/ChangeLog
> ===================================================================
> --- libltdl/ChangeLog	(revision 181511)
> +++ libltdl/ChangeLog	(working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
> +2011-11-19  Andreas Tobler<andreast@fgznet.ch>
> +
> +	* acinclude.m4: Additional FreeBSD 10 fixes.
> +	* configure: Regenerate.
> +
>
>>
>>> Is this ok for 4.6 branch?
>>
>> Merging upstream changes from libtool that unbreak bootstrap on a
>> primary platform and are completely specific and isolated to that
>> platform should always be fine.
>>
>> You did not indicate how you tested it, but assuming a full bootstrap
>> and testsuite run (which platform exactly?) please go ahead.


Committed, thanks.

Results are here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-11/msg02050.html

And commit is this one:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-11/msg00829.html

Andreas

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> And commit is this one:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-11/msg00829.html

Thanks, Andreas!  If the libtool update on trunk is dragging out, I 
suggest you go ahead with this there, too.

Gerald

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Andreas Tobler wrote:

> Committed, thanks.
> 
> Results are here:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-11/msg02050.html
> 
> And commit is this one:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-11/msg00829.html

I don't see this on mainline, only 4.6 branch - am I missing something or 
is mainline now in a regressed state relative to 4.6?  A fix should always 
go on mainline before 4.6, 4.6 before 4.5, 4.5 before 4.4, and unless and 
until a full merge from libtool upstream happens that means this partial 
fix.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I don't see this on mainline, only 4.6 branch - am I missing something 
> or is mainline now in a regressed state relative to 4.6?  A fix should 
> always go on mainline before 4.6, 4.6 before 4.5, 4.5 before 4.4, and 
> unless and until a full merge from libtool upstream happens that means 
> this partial fix.

Agreed, Joseph.  That's what we discussed.  We just wanted to give the 
build/configure guys a day or two for the libtool update, not making that 
one more tricky in case it finally happened, while not waiting longer 
before fixing the release branch.  So, technically you are absolutely 
right, and we'll close that window soon unless the wholesale libtool
update happens earlier.

Gerald