From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21426 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2013 17:49:07 -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 21416 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jul 2013 17:49:07 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,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; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:49:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6MHmxcN028645 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:48:59 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-128.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.128]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6MHmvsL021583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:48:58 -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> <871u9zn0wa.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <517ACB2C.2030006@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <517ACB2C.2030006@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:45:00 +0100") Message-ID: <87vc425vue.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: 2013-07/txt/msg00511.txt.bz2 >>>>> "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. Perhaps gnulib would also have to be pushed up. Tom