[llvm-commits] [PATCH] Remove obsolete autoconf stuff, and upgrade autoconf, cuts down configure size to 361K (from 1.1M!)

[Shantonu Sen]

This patch looks scary to me. Do we really want to invest in moving to  
a new autoconf/libtool/automake version that I'm told has known  
incompatibilities (which means it's unlikely to be used by anyone else)?

Some specific issues:
1)
>  dnl Indicate that we require autoconf 2.59 or later. Ths is needed  
> because we
>  dnl use some autoconf macros only available in 2.59.
> -AC_PREREQ(2.59)
> +AC_PREREQ(2.64)

Please update the comments

2)
> -want_libtool_version='1\.5\.22'

What version of libtool is being used? I can't figure it out. Where is  
it documented?

3)
>   3. Copy <SRC>/ltdl.m4 to llvm/autoconf/m4
> + 3. Copy <SRC>/ltsugar.m4 to llvm/autoconf/m4
>   4. Copy <PFX>/share/aclocal/libtool.m4 to llvm/autoconf/m4/ 
> libtool.m4

You didn't update any of the step numbering, leading to many duplicate  
numbered steps and gaps of steps.

4) I thought the policy was not to upgrade config.guess? Even if not,  
you've lost several local LLVM changes:
>      *:Darwin:*:*)
>         UNAME_PROCESSOR=`uname -p` || UNAME_PROCESSOR=unknown
>         case $UNAME_PROCESSOR in
> -           *86) UNAME_PROCESSOR=i686 ;;
>             unknown) UNAME_PROCESSOR=powerpc ;;
>         esac

I don't know what else was overwritten, but it can't be good.

6) These changes use libtool internal macros, like  
"_LT_PROG_ECHO_BACKSLASH". These are not stable, and should not be  
used by configure scripts.

I think this requirements more refinement.

Shantonu

Sent from my MacBook

On Sep 6, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:

> 2009/9/5 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The attached patches update the autoconf stuff to work with latest
>> autoconf, and remove some obsolete m4 macros
>> that were no longer used.
>>
>> This cuts down the size of configure from 1.1M to 361K!
>
> Very nice!
>
>> Can someone test if this works on darwin too?
>
> Seems to work fine, I tested targeting i386/x86_64 and ppc from a
> x86_64-apple-darwin10 machine.
>
>> How should I commit the patch (broken up in 5 pieces or a single  
>> commit?)
>
> No opinion.
>
> - Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits