This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: A patch for gnu-regex


On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 01:44:13AM +1100, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > >
> > >    I can add --enable-gdb-regex if it helps.
> > >
> > > If we decide to do so, could we then try to be consistent with other
> > > GNU packages that already let the user choose between the regex
> > > implementation distributed with that package, and the implementation
> > > in the C library, and us --with(out)-included-regex?
> > >
> > 
> > Here is a revised patch. It overrides:
> > 
> > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00562.html
> > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00566.html
> 
> This patch is definitly much better than the original.
> 
> Unfortunatly, I don't think that selecting a pre-installed regexp should
> be the default.  My rationale (As Mark? noted) is that ensuring that a
> GDB release provides consistent behavour between systems (1) is more

Please remember, we, Linux, want to provide a consistent behavour
cross the whole system. I think, Cygnus and FSF, haven't got rid of
the idea that you are providing some replacements for some existing
programs. When you build a Linux system from the source, do you like
N copies for the same thing everywhere? If I were you, I would want
everyone to use the master copy.

> important than having it select the latest/greatest random regexp.

That latest/greatest random regex is in your system C library. It is
used by your system. If you don't think it is good enough for gdb,
do you think it is good enough for the rest of your machine?

> 
> Perhaphs, what is needed is a, post 5.0, update to the regexp code.

I don't want to use regex in gdb when I have the master copy in my
C library. As I said, it is a Linux/Hurd issue.

> 
> 	enjoy,
> 		Andrew
> 
> PS: Should the ``defined _GLIBC_ && _GLIBC_ >= 2'' test be part of
> configure.in?
> PPS: I have to wonder if some of those #include's are actually needed
> :-)

I was considering the same thing. I will update my patch.


H.J.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]