Re: [PATCH 0/3] Use gnulib c-ctype module, not <ctype.h>

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 10/16/25 5:50 PM, Luis wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025, 16:30 Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com <mailto:tromey@adacore.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Tom> Another option would be to write our own thing akin to "c-ctype" but
>     Tom> that uses the libiberty code instead.  That would work since
>     Tom> libinproctrace.so seems to link against libiberty.
> 
>     I tried this but forgot that libinproctrace.so does not use gdbsupport
>     either.
> 
>     I strongly dislike how libinproctrace.so was implemented.  A bunch of
>     cpp conditions in random files seems a lot worse than just having
>     separate sources, since the rules for the IPA and non-IPA cases are
>     different.
> 
>     Tom
> 
> 
> Does anybody else think it might be time for the IPA to go? It feels like it is one of those bits that almost nobody uses nowadays and maintenance hasn't kept up, and it gets in the way of newer changes.
> 
> If tracepoints are seldom used in gdbserver, the IPA seems even more niche.

Given the bit-rot and lack of maintenance, I think it would be
reasonable to start the removal process.  That's the only real way to
know if it's actually used... if someone actually needs it, they'll
speak up.

Simon