[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 Rhys Kidd changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #15 from Rhys Kidd --- Patches in master Valgrind git. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #14 from Rhys Kidd --- OK, I'll land this autotools cleanup series sometime this week. Will spin up a separate series that sets the minimum autoconf version, and drops the need for some hacks for functionality that valgrind can now rely upon being in autotools. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #13 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #11) > autoconf-2.60released 2006-06-26 > autoconf-2.63released 2008-09-09 > > Even autoconf-2.68 is nearly a decade old having been released on > 2010-09-22. > > I'd be surprised if RHEL 6+ didn't support at least autoconf-2.60. Any of those three versions sounds fine to me, even 2.68. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #12 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #10) > At the end of the block the "-Werror" is reverted, and autotools continues > to the next block. Ah, yes. I was aware of the flag save/restore game, but I didn't know that -Werror was an important part of it. This all sounds fine. Please land. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #11 from Rhys Kidd --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #9) > (In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #7) > > I also wonder whether valgrind should be explicit about a minimum supported > > version of autoconf (via AC_PREREQ() macro)? > > I would be in favour of that. My only comment is that it should nevertheless > be a pretty old minimum version, because we'll want to support building V on > pretty old systems -- think ancient RHEL setups, etc. Is it realistic to > hope > for a minimum version that is, simultaneously, actually useful to enforce, > and > yet allows us to build on systems that are 5 years old? I was considering relying upon one of one of the following minimum versions, which provide a better trade off between quality-of-life features and support for older distributions: autoconf-2.60released 2006-06-26 autoconf-2.63released 2008-09-09 Even autoconf-2.68 is nearly a decade old having been released on 2010-09-22. I'd be surprised if RHEL 6+ didn't support at least autoconf-2.60. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #10 from Rhys Kidd --- (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #8) > One minor question: > > 0004-config-Conditionalize-finline-functions-on-compiler-.patch > > +safe_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS > +CFLAGS="-finline-functions -Werror" > > Why -Werror for the test compiler invokation? Is that standard? Yes, this is an approach used many times within Valgrind's configure.ac. Look for any of the examples of: safe_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Werror" ... CFLAGS=$safe_CFLAGS Between the first and last line, the CFLAGS is temporarily overwritten with the compiler option we are testing for the presence of. The "-Werror" works to cause a hard error if the compiler option isn't present, which is then handled. At the end of the block the "-Werror" is reverted, and autotools continues to the next block. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #9 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #7) > I also wonder whether valgrind should be explicit about a minimum supported > version of autoconf (via AC_PREREQ() macro)? I would be in favour of that. My only comment is that it should nevertheless be a pretty old minimum version, because we'll want to support building V on pretty old systems -- think ancient RHEL setups, etc. Is it realistic to hope for a minimum version that is, simultaneously, actually useful to enforce, and yet allows us to build on systems that are 5 years old? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #8 from Julian Seward --- Rhys, thank you for the cleanup patches. I know next to nothing about auto*, but these look OK to land, at least to my inexperienced eye. One minor question: 0004-config-Conditionalize-finline-functions-on-compiler-.patch +safe_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS +CFLAGS="-finline-functions -Werror" Why -Werror for the test compiler invokation? Is that standard? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #7 from Rhys Kidd --- I also wonder whether valgrind should be explicit about a minimum supported version of autoconf (via AC_PREREQ() macro)? This would allow some of the existing backwards compatible hacks to be dropped. The only current location that a minimum version is mentioned is at http://valgrind.org/downloads/repository.html, where autoconf >=2.68 is stated as a dependency upon automake >= 1.10. A minimum automake version dependency is currently specified in the code. Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #6 from Rhys Kidd --- Created attachment 118419 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=118419&action=edit 0006-Add-missing-documentation-file-from-EXTRA_DIST.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #5 from Rhys Kidd --- Created attachment 118418 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=118418&action=edit 0005-macOS-Don-t-duplicate-fno-stack-protector.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #4 from Rhys Kidd --- Created attachment 118417 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=118417&action=edit 0004-config-Conditionalize-finline-functions-on-compiler-.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #3 from Rhys Kidd --- Created attachment 118416 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=118416&action=edit 0003-Makefile.am-Consistent-indent-and-align.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #2 from Rhys Kidd --- Created attachment 118415 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=118415&action=edit 0002-config-Set-automake-options-consistenly-in-one-locat.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[valgrind] [Bug 404888] [PATCH] autotools cleanup series
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888 --- Comment #1 from Rhys Kidd --- Created attachment 118414 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=118414&action=edit 0001-config-remove-unrequired-AC_HEADER_STDC.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
