This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC 1/2] link gdbserver against libiberty
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 13:59:54 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] link gdbserver against libiberty
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1390243792-31176-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <1390243792-31176-2-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <52DDD1BA dot 7050202 at codesourcery dot com> <87y51n0yh4 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <52F50A87 dot 6000907 at redhat dot com>
>> -SUBDIRS = $(GNULIB_BUILDDIR)
>> +SUBDIRS = $(GNULIB_BUILDDIR) $(LIBIBERTY_BUILDDIR)
>> CLEANDIRS = $(SUBDIRS)
>> +INSTALLDIRS = $(GNULIB_BUILDDIR)
Pedro> I understand making sure we don't try to install anything from
Pedro> libiberty. Preexisting to this patch, but I wonder why we even
Pedro> run make install in gnulib. Seems that like with libiberty,
Pedro> we wouldn't ever want to install anything built in gnulib
Pedro> subdir.
On the one hand it is odd; but on the other it can be argued for from a
black-box perspective. The reason I skipped this for libiberty is that
gdb uses its own "install-only" target when entering subdirs; but this
is neither GNU nor generally used in the rest of the tree. So, it
caused installation to fail.
It's possible to fix this another way, say entering libiberty and using
the "install" target there. But it seems not worth the effort to me;
first because we don't want to install anything in libiberty (unless one
highly values the black box approach, which I do not); and second
because eventually I will be moving all this stuff to the top-level
anyway.
Tom