From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 104240 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2019 13:43:04 -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 103911 invoked by uid 89); 12 Mar 2019 13:43:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HTo:U*palves, feet, spent, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:43:02 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x2CDgtrR021251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:43:00 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id E40871E660; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C201E519; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:42:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:43:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Pedro Alves Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MinGW build failure for GDB 8.2.90 with source-highlight In-Reply-To: <3f85112b-0b3f-fb74-e61e-88e12164b740@redhat.com> References: <83r2bibvlv.fsf@gnu.org> <83ef7d5wak.fsf@gnu.org> <3f85112b-0b3f-fb74-e61e-88e12164b740@redhat.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 On 2019-03-12 06:52, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Pedro, did you have a branch where you put all of gdb in the gdb >> namespace?  I only found this branch, but it's using the gnulib:: >> namespace, which is not the same. >> >> https://github.com/palves/gdb/commits/palves/cxx-gnulib-namespace >> > > Right, not that one. That was the first attempt, and then I almost > posted > that one upstream at the time. I was about to press 'git send-email' > but > got cold feet, thinking there must be a better way. That's when > I tried the "namespace gdb" approach instead. And that one is in > the branch I pointed at in my previous message: > >> Prototyped here: >> https://github.com/palves/gdb/commits/palves/cxx-gdb-namespace > > Note: cxx-gdb-namespace != cxx-gnulib-namespace Ah oops, sorry about that, it was late! >> I just started to try to do it to get a feel of what's needed.  I >> guess we need to put pretty much everything except includes (and maybe >> some other rare exceptions) between namespace gdb { ... }?  And of >> course define GNULIB_NAMESPACE to gdb. > Yes, that's the gist of it. > > I've actually been working on that since Friday. Spent a chunk of the > weekend > on it, and some time yesterday. Meant to reply back yesterday, but > something > got in the way. > > I have a script in the branch that does a good chunk of the work, but > unfortunately, > it still requires a lot of manual touching up. I thought the rebase > would be > trivial, but with all the new files and churn in the codebase since > 2016, it > still involved a lot of manual re-work. I can imagine. > I have it building on x86-64 now. > I've forced pushed what I have now. The branch has >130 patches > currently, most of > the them are small per-file patches. I need to clean this up a bit, > squash some > of the fixes-on-fixes patches. I'm not exactly sure how to post this > to the > list... I don't really see how this can be done incrementally, it would be really complicated to add the namespace to just some files, I think. So I don't see any other choice than one big patch. Plus maybe some others for preparation cleanups. Ideally the big patch would be trivial and not move too much things around. > And also, of course this needs at least build-testing on a wider set > of hosts/cross compilers. Maybe people could take a preliminary look > at the > branch, see if they agree with direction? I diffed the files that I modified manually when just trying it out yesterday with the same files in your branch, and there is no significant difference. I think the direction you took is fine. Simon