From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26558 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2013 19:04:42 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26548 invoked by uid 89); 24 Apr 2013 19:04:42 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:04:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3OJ4eKp008385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:04:40 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3OJ4d4C022781; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:04:39 -0400 Message-ID: <51782CC6.9040008@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 02:45:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: introduce common.m4 References: <871u9zomzd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51782A71.7030305@redhat.com> <87obd3n4c8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87obd3n4c8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00756.txt.bz2 On 04/24/2013 07:58 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> What's the advantage of doing it this way? Caching? Doesn't autoconf > Pedro> use the cached value if there are multiple AC_CHECK_FOOs for the same > Pedro> thing? Not super sure I like this over keeping each directory aware > Pedro> of its dependencies, but I suppose I can go along. > > The advantage is in maintenance. Right now one must remember to update > both gdb and gdbserver configure scripts in parallel. I think you misunderstood the question. Sorry if it wasn't clear. The "this way" was referring to: > The rule I propose is that if something is needed or used by common, > it should be checked for by common.m4; but that code outside this > directory also be free to use these results. This means that removing > checks from common.m4 must first be preceded by looking at uses in gdb > and gdbserver. I think this is pretty easy to do -- easier than what > we are doing now -- and I have documented the requirement. over keeping common aware of the checks it needs to do (in common.m4), and gdb/ and gdbserver/ also doing the checks they need for code under gdb/ and gdbserver/ respectively. Of course the current status of needing to update gdb and gdbserver in parallel for common/ things is no good. -- Pedro Alves