From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14484 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2013 20:12:41 -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 14470 invoked by uid 89); 24 Apr 2013 20:12:40 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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 20:12:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3OKCcnK008219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:38 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3OKCbm0021141 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:12:37 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves 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> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <51782CC6.9040008@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:04:38 +0100") Message-ID: <871u9zn0wa.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00758.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> I think you misunderstood the question. Indeed. Sorry about that. >> 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. Pedro> over keeping common aware of the checks it needs to do (in common.m4), Pedro> and gdb/ and gdbserver/ also doing the checks they need for code under Pedro> gdb/ and gdbserver/ respectively. Pedro> Of course the current status of needing to update gdb and gdbserver in Pedro> parallel for common/ things is no good. Yeah, there is no deep reason for it other than wanting to avoid duplicate checks. The cache would work fine for the performance aspect. I can certainly just drop the configure.ac changes if you think that yields a better result. Tom