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: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, 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 06:40:20 -0700
- 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> <email@example.com> <576BF822.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CAESRpQBX9RJbUS0GA2Uc2o7Zw3bU=buT=Yd4uEA7-HA+4F43hg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> On 23 June 2016 at 18:02, Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> But on the other hand, the idea of maintaining multiple gnulib
>> copies isn't that appealing either. Considering that the long
>> term desired result ends up with a libiberty that is no longer a
>> portability library, but instead only an utilities library, then to
>> get to that stage, the other programs in the binutils-gdb repo which
>> rely on libiberty too, binutils proper, gas, ld, gold, etc., need
>> to be converted to use gnulib as well. And then a single
>> gnulib sounds even more appealing.
> AFAICT, the only "utilities" found in libiberty not appropriate for
> gnulib is the demangler. That would be more appropriate for a
> libdemangler library shared among all gnutools.
Does gnulib have a functional equivalent to the pex and simple-object