This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Patch to build gdb-5.0 with readline-4.1
- To: ezannoni at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Patch to build gdb-5.0 with readline-4.1
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:26:11 -0400 (EDT)
- CC: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, msnyder at cygnus dot com, andrew dot gaylard at za dot didata dot com, andrew dot gaylard at bsw dot co dot za, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, snowball3 at bigfoot dot com
- References: <39316D76.EAB1DAD8@bsw.co.za><200005290738.DAA06104@indy.delorie.com><3932236B.60A9BF69@za.didata.com><395B86CE.3499@cygnus.com><3932FA80.C24DB9F6@cygnus.com> <14691.46229.916206.472987@kwikemart.cygnus.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:20:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Andrew Cagney writes:
> > Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> > > Well, we went thru the same struggle the last time we merged
> > > with readline. Maybe it would save trouble if we just renamed
> > > our version of savestring (which I believe is unrelated to the
> > > readline version) to gdb_savestring. Then we could forget
> > > about it, and future readline merges might be less troublesome.
> >
> > Well, part of my todo list is to get savestring() replaced by something
> > in libiberty. (like liberty:xstrdup() is slowly replaceing strsave()).
> > There is (a slightly irksum) xmemdup() available, perhaphs there could
> > be xstrldup() (and so I start a flame war about string duplicate
> > function interfaces :-).
> >
>
> Do we have a preference on this? I would like to follow Michael's
> suggestion.
Either gdb_savestring or libiberty's xstrdup is fine, I think.
Perhaps the latter is better, since we already use libiberty.