Re: RFC: introduce common.m4

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 04/24/2013 07:58 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Pedro> What's the advantage of doing it this way?  Caching?  Doesn't autoconf
> Pedro> use the cached value if there are multiple AC_CHECK_FOOs for the same
> Pedro> thing?  Not super sure I like this over keeping each directory aware
> Pedro> of its dependencies, but I suppose I can go along.
> 
> The advantage is in maintenance.  Right now one must remember to update
> both gdb and gdbserver configure scripts in parallel.

I think you misunderstood the question.  Sorry if it wasn't clear.
The "this way" was referring to:

> The rule I propose is that if something is needed or used by common,
> it should be checked for by common.m4; but that code outside this
> directory also be free to use these results.  This means that removing
> checks from common.m4 must first be preceded by looking at uses in gdb
> and gdbserver.  I think this is pretty easy to do -- easier than what
> we are doing now -- and I have documented the requirement.

over keeping common aware of the checks it needs to do (in common.m4),
and gdb/ and gdbserver/ also doing the checks they need for code under
gdb/ and gdbserver/ respectively.

Of course the current status of needing to update gdb and gdbserver in
parallel for common/ things is no good.

-- 
Pedro Alves