Re: nls patches - need help with make machinery

[Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>]

On Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 09:38:48PM -0500, Robert Lipe wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 
> > I hope these patches fix the following problem(s) as well? In addition, I
> > suggest to address those tons of warnings in that code; right now, it's
> > even hard to find the errors.
> 
> I hate to be a grouch, but I'll take this opportunity to point out
> that if we had a "don't introduce new warnings into the build" rule,
> I believe none of the non-standard GCC extensions that broke builds
> on other systems would have made it in.  We would have still had the
> bootstrapping problems with missing libraries becuase the "you must
> bootstrap while testing your changes" rule wasn't followed.

Unfortunately, the code in libintl isn't compiled at all on systems that
use GNU libc, because configure finds the routines in libc and skips them
over.  So this would not have helped.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to move libintl to the top level
of the tree, alongside libiberty.  This would avoid the problems with
gcc's um, idiosyncratic configure layout.  It could also avoid the
problems with chill's old-style Makefile (though I think we should work
towards eliminating that).  Has anyone done i18n for gdb or binutils?

zw