From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2357 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2013 15:34:21 -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 2348 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jul 2013 15:34:20 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:34:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6QFYCWL025288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:34:12 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6QFYABe017846; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:34:11 -0400 Message-ID: <51F296F2.9090702@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:34:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 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> <51782CC6.9040008@redhat.com> <871u9zn0wa.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <517ACB2C.2030006@redhat.com> <87vc425vue.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87vc425vue.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00642.txt.bz2 On 07/22/2013 06:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves 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