This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Should we import gnulib under gcc/ or at the top-level like libiberty?
- From: Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm at gmail dot com>
- To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, ayush goel <ayushgoel1610 at gmail dot com>, gcc Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, nd at arm dot com, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:53:06 +0300
- Subject: Re: Should we import gnulib under gcc/ or at the top-level like libiberty?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <etPan.576ad632.63dc2d3.fa@Ayushs-MacBook-Pro.local> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <576BF822.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAESRpQBX9RJbUS0GA2Uc2o7Zw3bU=buT=Yd4uEA7-HA+4F43hg@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/10/2016 08:15 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Moving all gnutools to a single git/svn repository that can still be
> built piece-wise would help sharing gnulib and other useful libraries.
> If LLVM can do it, there is no reason why gnutools can't. And they
> have shown that it helps code reuse and modular design. All the manual
> syncing between gnu projects is a waste of time.
But LLVM does not keep everything in a single repository. In fact, it's quite
the opposite: they have a separate repo for Clang (the frontend, ~ gcc/c, cp,
...), for compiler-rt (~ libgcc), for libc++ (~ libstdc++).
All utilities (~ libiberty) live in the LLVM repo (include/llvm/ADT,
include/llvm/Support, lib/Support). Other projects, like LLDB, are checked out
into a subdirectory, and are always built from the combined tree.