Re: question about the common/ subdir (was "Re: Ping: Merge duplicated macros in linux-nat.c and linux-low.c")

Pedro Alves
2011-02-28T14:54:40Z

On Monday 28 February 2011 14:06:39, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > gdb/
> > >
> > > * linux-nat.c: Move common macros to ...
> > > Include linux-ptrace.h.
> > > * common/linux-ptrace.h: ... here. New.
> > >
> > > gdb/gdbserver/
> > >
> > > * linux-low.c: Move common macros to linux-ptrace.h.
> > > Include linux-ptrace.h.
> > > * Makefile.in (linux_ptrace_h): New.
> > > (linux-low.o): Depends on linux-ptrace.h.
>
> Speaking of which, what was the latest decision regarding the
> way we would handle the sources in common/. I thought that we
> were going to delete the configury and Makefile, and treat this
> the same way we treat the gnulib/ directory. Was that ever
> decided? I personally would like to give this idea a try and
> see where it goes, but I'm not enough of an expert to really
> predict whether it's going to be better or not. I can look
> at producing patches, though.

IMO, we should go ahead with
that, see <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-02/msg00657.html>.

In sum, I'm convinced the trouble of listing an object
in two Makefiles is negligiceably compared to the pain
we've been getting ourselves into as long as:

- the core set of headers between gdb and gdbserver aren't
harmonized/shared, and,

- we still need to maintain separate AC_CHECK_HEADERS & co
in gdb's and gdbserver's configury&makefilery.
This one is a major point against the current status
quo, IMO.

I've pointed out Yet Another Way to handle this in the
url above (but as I said there, I'm not sure we want
to be playing with this stuff at this time). And
it may be well be a totally stupid idea. :-)

--
Pedro Alves