From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26476 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2011 14:08:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 26464 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2011 14:08:38 -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, 21 Dec 2011 14:08:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7094C2BB3FB; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:08:17 -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 jy575Qh8avLp; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00952BB3E5; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 91C8C145615; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:08:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: 'gdb-patches' Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Do not build libgdb.a by default Message-ID: <20111221140811.GL23376@adacore.com> References: <20111221114720.GC25652@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111221125919.GJ23376@adacore.com> <004001ccbfe6$f747e890$e5d7b9b0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004001ccbfe6$f747e890$e5d7b9b0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00726.txt.bz2 > We (Free Pascal core team) are still using libgdb.a library to > statically link GDB into our "home made" IDE with GDB debugger > integrated... > > I don't mind much needed to explicitly ask for libgdb.a library, but > please leave the rule present! Not to worry, we are not discussing the idea of removing this rule. As long as it's not a hassle to keep it, I do not think it will be on the agenda. You do have to realize, however, that we have been explicitly recommending against it for years. There are so many disadvantages to this approach, you might want to consider moving to GDB/MI before you get stuck. -- Joel