From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8556 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2011 18:03:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 8547 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2011 18:03:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:03:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1SI3Uxp008298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:03:30 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1SI3UHZ013973; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:03:30 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1SI3Tpn012606; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:03:29 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B20363784EE; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:03:28 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver References: <4D30E23F.3080103@codesourcery.com> <4D375F44.70504@codesourcery.com> <201101281504.38962.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4D550834.6080807@codesourcery.com> <4D55FAB4.7090001@codesourcery.com> <4D648A5F.8050607@codesourcery.com> <4D65D5B7.1000902@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4D65D5B7.1000902@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:51:19 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00920.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> Personally, I still prefer a separated configure/makefile in common/, Yao> because, Yao> 1. if my patch works, configure/make is not a problem, Yao> 2. if we look forward, there should be quite a few *.c and *.h files in Yao> common in the future. Write rules in both gdb/Makefile.in and Yao> gdbserver/Makefile.in doesn't scale. I think the most important thing is that if you want to keep the common/configure stuff, then please fix the existing problems that have been reported. Maybe it is just the GNU make-ism at this point, I haven't kept track. Tom