From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3076 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2011 20:50:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 3068 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2011 20:50:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:50:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 7053 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2011 20:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 23 Feb 2011 20:50:13 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-25-generic; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4D30E23F.3080103@codesourcery.com> <201102232021.57283.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201102232050.12119.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00658.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 23 February 2011 20:28:02, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> I wasn't objecting. I agree with going back. We're > Pedro> seeing more trouble than benefit from configure+Makefile > Pedro> under common/ at this point. But I'd prefer to do an actual > Pedro> revert, just to make sure we don't inadvertently leave > Pedro> something behind or forget something. > > I realized my note may not have been totally clear -- I just realized I > didn't really know what I was doing, and unlike other areas where I > don't know what I am doing, in this one I don't have a pressing need to > learn, I was just noodling around to little purpose. I have to get back > to the stuff I'm really supposed to be doing :) Noooooooooooo. :-) > Concretely, I tend to agree about reverting but I am not committed to > it. I think forward motion and enthusiasm is more important than the > extra configury or whatever. Indeed. But sometimes we need to take a step back. Nothing wrong with that! 1 step back, 10 steps forward, and we learn in the process. Thinking forward, I was wondering about having a configure.common fragment under common/ that's sourced by both gdb/configure.ac and gdbserver/configure.ac. In it, we'd have some AC_CHECK_HEADERS and other checks necessary for the files under common/, and we'd export a COMMON_OBJS variable with all the common objects, or some such. We'd have no common.a library that's not really common, still get rid of the extra configure, and have one single place to add objects to. But maybe we should only come back to this once we do have more files under common/, and maintaining the two configure/Makefiles reveals being a burden? Or wait for changing this area again until 7.3 is branched? -- Pedro Alves