[Gc] Maintainers attention: libatomic_ops

Matthias Andree matthias.andree at gmx.de
Wed Sep 30 06:36:13 PDT 2009

Am 30.09.2009, 14:29 Uhr, schrieb Henning Makholm <makholm at octoshape.com>:

> The trouble with that is that you'll never know if it works unless  
> you're sure
> that the contributor who creates and tests a patch for a particular  
> configuration
> (which other developers may not be able to test) is using the same  
> autotools
> versions to generate autofoo files as will be used to produce the final  
> tarball
> in the end.

I have yet to see real-world issues of this that aren't caused by misuse  
of the auto* stuff such as incomplete autogen.sh scripts or use of  
autoconf 2.13 compatibility cruft with 2.50+ versions (which have been  
around for nearly a decade now).

> Given the traditional lack of cross-version robustness of the autotools  
> suite,
> there would be a large risk that contributors submitted code that worked  
> with
> their version of the autotools, but (unknown to anyone) happened to fail  
> on the
> version Hans uses to create the distribution tarball.

The traditional lack of cross-version robustness would likely apply to  
autoconf before 2.50 and automake 1.5, or perhaps 1.6, and also usually  
refer to incomplete or misordered rebuilds of the auto* stuff, and usually  
also be fixed through autoreconf -ivf (add -s if you like).

I cannot vouch for libtool, but auto* is quite sane, and has been for half  
a decade.

> The code tested for each platform should be same code that eventually  
> ships.

"Code tested" would be GC code, not the build surroundings that you throw  
away after installation, and auto* shouldn't influence that.

Matthias Andree

More information about the Gc mailing list