From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10616 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2012 16:10:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 10536 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2012 16:10:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vx0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:09:44 +0000 Received: by vcbfk14 with SMTP id fk14so8223156vcb.0 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=fmfcZ7CFIo1LET6qwxvyoL9b/fSRckUCweYrxj04ZoQ=; b=Q7u3V+BgAoYx+x7jskq3nkQ0aZ6mltwv2PD1qL946/sWBTX40bdhckSocOu9zk2Vfl poefF/d2x23rPadiD+RcU8SIW2wWpC2Av+qBlA2y1S8muYEmy9yVEdnjv7ba4IEKgJWh +3bXBWj7K3TuKm2YUrZvYBg47pSK78Y8zIk1hrr4iVHHsR/mrmLk5CZ8eHO4/tn9iIgg si34EC26dRqXiDADmT7+XXsP6jVScjAYOfP/OnE8HpRO0qQlArAY7jPJjI/SOrulmGaB P1qIsR2bpPUcmJ6RHbQx1ug9Ik/yLMv9ijdH9EDos9YyevzVFd0bGH2/tlCwf2I/V8yN bXNQ== Received: by 10.220.231.136 with SMTP id jq8mr5445038vcb.74.1332173383805; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.231.136 with SMTP id jq8mr5445024vcb.74.1332173383683; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.187.12 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <871uotbscq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <87k42lbvco.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201203151833.q2FIXeOs003077__40387.7084645957$1331836457$gmane$org@greed.delorie.com> <87d38dbtal.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201203151848.q2FImnAq004284__18018.6977530413$1331837385$gmane$org@greed.delorie.com> <871uotbscq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFA: consolidate DWARF strings into libiberty From: Doug Evans To: Tom Tromey Cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlig3cbdO30vm/N0YrQU8znt5htA3Cj5oTBZsrVWo9bVTb0XEJUUIGgqmcWctXGnjW2EITroUQZT8KQLYOC0stH4Ch4wQiqJq++K8kjyp/W9NU2JbG76oco/pPZcCNF+u7DFI9arlwm8CU8W4mSOY4J2Mgvxw== X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00709.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "DJ" =3D=3D DJ Delorie writes: > > Tom> Finally, there is already stuff in libiberty not related to > Tom> portability. =A0E.g., hashtab or the demangler. > > DJ> Yeah, I know, hence my "Should I give up that premise?" > > Yeah. > > I am not sure there will ever be enough shared code to warrant a new > library, particularly because adding a new library is so expensive -- > not just the configury stuff but also adding it to the link lines in the > Makefiles of all the tools that might need it. > > I suppose if I had my wish list implemented here, it would be to remove > the portability stuff from libiberty in favor of gnulib, and keep > libiberty as a higher-level library. That won't really fix libiberty being an ever growing kitchen sink. How hard would it really be to make it easier to add new libraries? It's not like we're expecting 100. But given the pushback for even one new library, I think we're unnecessarily slowing ourselves down.