This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Move gdbserver to top level
- From: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 22:34:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move gdbserver to top level
- References: <87d0bf45up.fsf@tromey.com> <7ceebbb7-b2f7-3d4a-1d8a-f31310badbe8@redhat.com> <874kwk8nz9.fsf@tromey.com> <171a3144-af37-1c29-a2a4-c4cd7eaa14c0@redhat.com> <87r1zm6x8s.fsf@tromey.com> <01b4b5ca-a802-54b5-3135-428b7c9faa84@redhat.com> <87o8uo4mj0.fsf@tromey.com>
Pedro> I guess it's the intended design for top level to build readline, bfd,
Pedro> etc. by default even if no application is being built that depends
Pedro> on them. I don't know.
[...]
Pedro> So I'm thinking that it might be better to document "make
Pedro> all-gdbserver" instead of the --disable approach. Or at least,
Pedro> mention it as alternative. WDYT?
Tom> Makes sense, though I may take a stab at fixing the top-level instead.
We talked about this at FOSDEM and Pedro convinced me to just go ahead
with the documentation change and the move, and consider changing the
top-level configury later.
Pedro> The equivalent for gdbserver would be the patch below,
Pedro> which seems to work well. Was there a reason you didn't follow
Pedro> libatomic's (etc.) model?
Tom> I just didn't think of it. I like your idea better, though, because it
Tom> means not duplicating information.
I've pulled this patch into mine.
I'm going to push it tomorrow or the day after, unless there's some
objection.
thanks,
Tom