On Fri, Nov 6, 2026, at 2:46 PM, Eric Gallager via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 9:55 PM Pietro Monteiro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Suspicious Content Warning: GW's email security system has determined that
>> the message below may be a potential email security threat. This message
>> includes content that is suspicious in nature and may indicate an attempt to
>> gather personal information. Proceed with caution if replying to or
>> following any links. Remember that GW will never ask you for your personal
>> information in an email. If you agree that the message below appears to be
>> suspicious, please forward it to [email protected].
>>
>> This warning is provided to you as a service from GW's Division of
>> Information Technology. If you have any questions about the validity of a
>> link or a message you receive, contact the IT Support Center at
>> 202-994-GWIT(4948), [email protected] or https://it.gwu.edu/
>>
>> ------------ Suspicious threat disclaimer ends here ------------
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026, at 12:19 PM, Eric Gallager via Gcc wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 12:02 PM Pietro Monteiro via Gcc <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I decided to try upgrading autoconf and automake to the latest
>> >> available versions, respectively 2.73 and 1.19. I put the result in a
>> >> branch on the forge (https://forge.sourceware.org/pietro/gcc.git
>> >> branch upgrade-autotools) and I'm doing some basic testing. The patch
>> >> at the tip of that branch depends on some patches I've sent
>> >> recently[1,2,3] and a patch I haven't sent yet hat does the same as
>> >> patch [3] but for libiberty.
>> >>
>> >> Before I go any further on this and start looking into upgrading
>> >> binutils-gdb tree too I wanted to ask:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Is this something we want to do at this moment in the release cycle?
>> >>
>> >> 2) If so, are the versions I picked ok? I was told developers install
>> >> autotools from source to avoid distro patches, so I went for latest.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is a bug with autoconf 2.73 that I would like to see fixed
>> > before upgrading: https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?111401
>> > (Note that Savannah has been throwing 502 Bad Gateway errors on me
>> > lately, so I can't confirm the latest status of it at the moment)
>>
>> I got the page to load after a few attempts. The bug title is:
>>
>> autoconf 2.73 -std=gnu23 spilling from CC into CC_FOR_BUILD
>>
>>
>> And it seems to be about the autoconf-archive macro
>> AX_PROG_CC_FOR_BUILD, which we don't use.
>
> OK so it seems like I linked the wrong bug due to Savannah erroring on
> me; I actually meant this one:
> https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?111400
I tested the patch on the bug report and it fixes the issue:
https://codeberg.org/sleepy4727/autoconf-2.73-test
I'll add it to my branch and regenerate all files.
pietro
>> >> 3) What kind of testing should be done? Are other people able to help
>> >> here, specially for targets that don't use the GNU toolchain?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Pietro
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/t/#u
>> >> [2]
>> >> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/t/#u
>> >> [3]
>> >> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/t/#u
