From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15290 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2011 05:46:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 15282 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2011 05:46:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4 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; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 05:46:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1160C2BAB92; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:46:09 -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 yMG5Tv-9pUus; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F532BAB79; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:46:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1167E1459AD; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:45:50 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 05:46:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Yao Qi Subject: Re: Include dir intl when building libcommon.a for gdb Message-ID: <20110304054550.GB30306@adacore.com> References: <4D6C90AC.9010003@codesourcery.com> <20110302121407.GO30306@adacore.com> <201103021243.58226.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103021243.58226.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 > > In the meantime, one proposed easy way out that doesn't destroy > > all the work that has been done so far is to add all the -I > > directories regardless of who we build libcommon for. I think > > it makes sense from a conceptual point of view, and it will also > > help us avoid maintaining 2 lists. But maybe it doesn't work for > > practical reasons. > > gdbserver does not depend on bfd. It's wrong to leave it in > the include path. gdbserver is not using gnulib either (memmem.o hack > doesn't count), Coming back to this, this makes me ask myself: If GDBserver does not use bfd, for instance, and we have code in common/ that needs bfd, does it not mean that we have code in common/ that is, well, not common between GDB and GDBserver??? IMO, we do not want that. -- Joel