Re: Per-type architecture (Re: [10/15] Basic value access routines)

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Ulrich Weigand<uweigand@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Doug Evans wrote:
>> OOC, what "excessive dependencies" are you referring to?
>> It seems odd to want to avoid dependencies on libraries, libraries are good.
>> [I'm sure there's more to the story here, hence the question.  :-)]
>
> Well, the concern was in fact really about adding a dependency on an external
> library, if I recall correctly.

Ah.  That makes all the difference in the world.

> GDB always used to be pretty self-contained,
> you don't need to install any external libraries in order to build or use it.
> While libraries are good from a developer's point of view, dependencies add
> hassles for users ...

For completeness' sake, it's not libraries in and of themselves (gdb
uses libreadline, libiberty, libopcodes, libbfd, for example), it's
dependencies on EXTERNAL libraries that can add hassles.

> Daniel initially suggested to add the expat sources to the src tree in order
> to keep that property, see the original discussion here:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-07/msg00231.html

Thanks for the reference.

> This approach was then discarded in favor of using an external expat library
> installed by the user, but only for "non-essential" purposes: if that library
> does not exist, it must still be possible to build and use GDB even if some
> non-essential GDB features then no longer work:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-08/msg00048.html

Ditto!