Re: RFC: introduce common.m4

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 07/22/2013 06:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> [ old-ish thread... ]
> 
> Pedro> IMO, it's a little better if each subdirectory treats the
> Pedro> others more as black boxes.  gdb/ relying on common/'s
> Pedro> HAVE_FOO checks feels like gdb/ relying on common/'s
> Pedro> implementation details to me.  But I don't want to impose.
> 
> Yeah, I agree.  When I refresh this patch I will do it this way.
> 
> Lately I have been thinking that common and gdbserver should be
> top-level directories (after renaming "common" something more suitable).
> This would let us use libiberty in gdbserver while still preserving, I
> think, the ability to build gdbserver separately.  Also it would let us
> treat "common" as a true library, not as the odd beast it is today.

Yeah, that crossed my mind before too.  But, it's not really necessary
for libiberty in gdbserver, given we could use the same trick
we use for gnulib (ACX_CONFIGURE_DIR).  With that in mind, such a
move seems more trouble than it's worth it to me, at least for now
as long as we're using cvs+modules.

> Perhaps gnulib would also have to be pushed up.

-- 
Pedro Alves