This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gcc/intl vs. src/intl
- From: Christopher Faylor <me at cgf dot cx>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:28:56 -0500
- Subject: Re: gcc/intl vs. src/intl
- References: <m3vfc5p7ge.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:53:05PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>So, I notice that gcc/intl and src/intl are pretty different. And I
>wonder how this can possibly work in the context of uberbaum. I
>suppose it will work fine on a host on which all the intl code can be
>found in libc with no other dependencies--such as GNU/Linux. On such
>a host the intl directory will not be built, and code will simply link
>with -lc. But on a host in which gcc/intl requires -liconv--such as
>NetBSD, or Cygwin--the differing expectations of gcc/intl and src/intl
>will cause conflict.
>
>Has anybody looked into resolving this? Presumably the correct
>short-term fix is to bring gcc/intl over to src/intl, and update the
>Makefiles accordingly. Presumably the long-term fix would to keep
>intl in sync as we keep libiberty in sync. Does anybody have a better
>idea?
The other, more radical way of doing this is to get rid of uberbaum and
finally put gcc, gdb, and binutils under one repository. cygwin, sid
and other non-GNU projects could keep using the src repository while
the other GNU projects could use the same infrastructure.
cgf