Re: gcc/intl vs. src/intl

[Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx>]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:53:05PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>So, I notice that gcc/intl and src/intl are pretty different.  And I
>wonder how this can possibly work in the context of uberbaum.  I
>suppose it will work fine on a host on which all the intl code can be
>found in libc with no other dependencies--such as GNU/Linux.  On such
>a host the intl directory will not be built, and code will simply link
>with -lc.  But on a host in which gcc/intl requires -liconv--such as
>NetBSD, or Cygwin--the differing expectations of gcc/intl and src/intl
>will cause conflict.
>
>Has anybody looked into resolving this?  Presumably the correct
>short-term fix is to bring gcc/intl over to src/intl, and update the
>Makefiles accordingly.  Presumably the long-term fix would to keep
>intl in sync as we keep libiberty in sync.  Does anybody have a better
>idea?

The other, more radical way of doing this is to get rid of uberbaum and
finally put gcc, gdb, and binutils under one repository.  cygwin, sid
and other non-GNU projects could keep using the src repository while
the other GNU projects could use the same infrastructure.

cgf