From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-121373-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6080 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2015 12:15:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 5940 invoked by uid 89); 31 Mar 2015 12:15:28 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:15:24 +0000
Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26])	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EDB68EFFD;	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:15:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11])	by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2VCFLAg005063;	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:15:22 -0400
Message-ID: <551A8FD9.50807@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:15:00 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
CC: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, GDB <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Add --with-system-zlib in bfd
References: <20150326155711.GA10088@gmail.com>	<20150331061337.GA30996@vapier>	<CAMe9rOpRauO-5fxuV5bZkUC0tMbbi0tCTCmGQ0GEe1NXEa1dYw@mail.gmail.com>	<551A78D4.7050804@redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOomwTtSiSS1K1zQpGvpArqZLDfOyapDVvC=Yfy5m3zBEg@mail.gmail.com>	<551A7CB1.4060101@redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOoBdTqGa-k9nX9ktW23h-jfA34Jx5D4wqnqO+eb4c8buA@mail.gmail.com>	<551A8907.6070309@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOrnBFYcD_gmJ4EveCV57gfHFq=fEbfb0zYRQ6+NssrByQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOrnBFYcD_gmJ4EveCV57gfHFq=fEbfb0zYRQ6+NssrByQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01037.txt.bz2

On 03/31/2015 01:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > They're all the same.  Just a couple doesn't define zlibdir or zlibinc.
> If zlib.m4 is changed, I will use it and GCC can also use it. But I
> don't know if other packages use zlib.m4.

Please change it.  Packages not in the tree can replace zlib.m4 with
something else if they need it, or adjust to the new body, and thus
end up consistent with the rest of the toolchain.

"git blame" shows that zlib.m4 was invented exactly to make
sure bfd/gdb use the same zlib switches and checks:

 https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-10/msg00600.html

Thanks,
Pedro Alves