This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Should we import gnulib under gcc/ or at the top-level like libiberty?


On 23/06/16 12:18, Pedro Alves wrote:
> gdb doesn't put that gnulib wrapper library at the top level, mainly
> just because of history -- we didn't always have that wrapper
> library -- and the fact that gdb/gdbserver/ itself is not at top
> level either, even though it would be better moved to top level.
> 
> See this long email, explaining how the current gdb's gnulib import
> is set up:
> 
>  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00426.html
> 
> I suggest gcc reuses the whole of gdb's wrapper library and scripts:
> 
>  https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=tree;f=gdb/gnulib;h=cdf326774716ae427dc4fb47c9a410fcdf715563;hb=HEAD
> 
> ... but put it in the top level instead.

if both gcc and binutils used a toplevel gnulib directory
then shared tree build would have the same problem as
libiberty has now: gcc and binutils can depend on different
versions of libiberty and then the build can fail.

as far as i know the shared tree build is the only way to
build a toolchain without install (using in tree binutils)
and it would be nice to fix that use case.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]