Re: [PATCH 09/36] floatformat.h: Wrap in extern "C".

Doug Evans
2015-02-14T22:46:22Z

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/14/2015 05:29 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2015 11:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> Why is not needed for GCC building with C++ compiler?
>>>
>>> Because it doesn't include it.
>>>
>>> The header of the file claims it is part of GDB, though MAINTAINERS
>>> nowadays says that everything under include/ is owned by GCC.
>>
>> Wait, what?
>>
>> The actual wording is:
>> "The rule is that if the file exists in the gcc tree then gcc owns it."
>
> I was paraphrasing, and simplified it. That distinction seems
> irrelevant to me here because the file does exist in the gcc tree.
> It's necessary to build libiberty (for libiberty/floatformat.o).

No worries, I just wanted to make sure it didn't say something
it shouldn't.

> It's a fact that the header claims it is part of GDB:
>
> ~~~~~~
> /* IEEE floating point support declarations, for GDB, the GNU Debugger.
> Copyright (C) 1991-2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> This file is part of GDB.
> (...)
> ~~~~~~
>
> I guess it should say that it is part of libiberty instead.

At the least the current wording is confusing.

>> It originated from this thread,
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2013-11/msg00025.html
>> That's not the first message in the thread, but that's where
>> I remember wanting to see something written down.
>>
>> Perhaps kinda unfortunate for things like include/gdb/gdb-index.h.
>> But at least it's a rule that can be expressed in one sentence,
>> and I don't think it's been a problem.
>
> I'm confused -- I didn't say it was a problem, nor expressed any
> concern with the rule. I just was pointing out facts.

I didn't say you said it was a problem.
It was just an offhand comment about the rule itself,
not anything you said.

> ISTM that the procedure here is to push this change first through
> the gcc repo first, and then merge it to binutils-gdb git. Is that
> wrong?

That's the procedure as I understand it.