From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24274 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2009 13:56:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 24249 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2009 13:56:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:55:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053C42BAC60; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7E0yaO8KjrMU; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:55:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDC82BAC59; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:55:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5CDC7F5905; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:55:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:51:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Add support for --without-zlib (take 2) Message-ID: <20091120135529.GG2831@adacore.com> References: <20091102232319.GJ4531@adacore.com> <20091119211326.GB10089@adacore.com> <4B05CF04.6020502@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B05CF04.6020502@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2 > As long as it is not used by GCC configury, I don't think people mind > here. The only suggestion I have is to have [default=auto] somewhere in > the help string. OK - I will add it. > BTW, zlib is always distributed with GCC so we always include zlib > support (and instead of --with-zlib, there is a --with-system-zlib flag > that does what you expect). Maybe you could do the same for binutils > and gdb? In that case, centralizing the test in AM_ZLIB is certainly > desirable, and gcc may pick up the macro later or parts of it. Yes, Tom Tromey also mentioned that. Right now, I am more interested in being able to build without zlib (we find its usefulness in GDB to be marginal for us), but maybe the day will come when GDB/binutils must be built with zlib, in which case I'll adjust zlib.m4 accordingly. Thank you! -- Joel