Re: (libiberty) basename dos/win tweak

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Mumit Khan <khan@xraylith.wisc.EDU>
 >  
 > "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
 > > 
 > >       If you're going to do this, you may as well take all the
 > > functionality from gcc's base_name() and handle VMS pathnames too.
 > > 
 > > Then we can nuke base_name from the gcc sources and just use basename
 > > from libiberty.  Take a look at base_name() from cccp.c.
 >  
 > Thank you for your comments.
 >  
 > This change doesn't currently affect GCC, since, as you point out, GCC
 > uses homegrown basename everywhere; I need this patch so that binutils
 > eventually picks up via regular merges. 


Well "everywhere" is currently cccp.c, cppfiles.c and cppinit.c.
There are no calls to basename anywhere, just base_name in the files I
listed.  There may be other reimplementations hiding under other names
I don't know about.

It will affect gcc in the future because I'd like to remove
redundant function definitions and just use what's in libiberty.  So
your contribution will help me clean up the code a bit.


 >  
 > I have no problem adding the VMS stuff of course, but I have no way of
 > knowing if it works or not (retired the last VAX/VMS machine around '95).
 > I'll resend in a day or so.

	Great, thanks.



 > btw, I'm assuming that all front-ends use libiberty now (I've lost track
 > of the thread).
 > Regards,
 > Mumit


	I've made sure that all the language subdirs use libiberty.
In the top level dir, one cannot use libiberty for any of the gen*
programs (anything that includes hconfig.h instead of config.h)
because we don't build a special host (build?) copy of libiberty.a
which is necessary for a canadian cross compile.

	I hope to have that done sometime soon.

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions