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: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- To: Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm 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 15:25:17 +0100
- 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> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 11 July 2016 at 13:53, Mikhail Maltsev <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
I stand corrected. It has been a while since I built the whole LLVM
toolchain and I was misremembering the details.