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: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, 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>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:19:40 +0000
- 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> <CAKOQZ8xRqe58U5ApN9D46PUTJgPF8xy7Z_J786wYZ41email@example.com>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > 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
If some functionality is missing from gnulib, I think it would be
appropriate to add it there so that its functionality becomes a superset
of that of libiberty.
Joseph S. Myers