Re: [PATCH] Move gdbserver to top level

Simon Marchi
2020-02-07T16:06:17Z

On 2020-02-03 4:34 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote:
> Pedro> I guess it's the intended design for top level to build readline, bfd,
> Pedro> etc. by default even if no application is being built that depends
> Pedro> on them. I don't know.
>
> [...]
>
> Pedro> So I'm thinking that it might be better to document "make
> Pedro> all-gdbserver" instead of the --disable approach. Or at least,
> Pedro> mention it as alternative. WDYT?
>
> Tom> Makes sense, though I may take a stab at fixing the top-level instead.
>
> We talked about this at FOSDEM and Pedro convinced me to just go ahead
> with the documentation change and the move, and consider changing the
> top-level configury later.
>
> Pedro> The equivalent for gdbserver would be the patch below,
> Pedro> which seems to work well. Was there a reason you didn't follow
> Pedro> libatomic's (etc.) model?
>
> Tom> I just didn't think of it. I like your idea better, though, because it
> Tom> means not duplicating information.
>
> I've pulled this patch into mine.
>
> I'm going to push it tomorrow or the day after, unless there's some
> objection.

I have no objection. I think for a big change like that we have to expect we'll
get some things wrong that we'll need to fix afterwards, no big deal.

It was suggested (on IRC, maybe on the mailing list too) that since we have moved
the gdbsupport directory, and are moving the gdbserver directory, we should take
the opportunity to rename these source files to .cc/.cxx/.cpp. I also have no objection
to that.

Simon