From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8825 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2011 18:05:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 8717 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2011 18:05:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:04:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21DB2BAC93; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OgfM-vx0edI2; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C342BAC92; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 442611459B0; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:04:45 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Yao Qi , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver Message-ID: <20110223180445.GV2600@adacore.com> References: <201101281504.38962.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4D550834.6080807@codesourcery.com> <4D55FAB4.7090001@codesourcery.com> <4D648A5F.8050607@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2 > It was simpler than I thought. > > The downside of this approach is that changes in common/ mean updating > two Makefiles, not just one. I think this is an ok tradeoff for getting > rid of a configure script plus the associated rules. I think that this might be a good solution indeed. I've been putting off a resync of our tree, which I normally do weekly, because I was concerned with the new common/ directory, and not have enough time to fix them myself. I would suggest we give it a try and see how much of a burden this really is in practice. (I normally do these resyncs specifically to identify breakage as early as possible) -- Joel