This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFA: consolidate DWARF strings into libiberty
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:02:13 -0600
- Subject: Re: RFA: consolidate DWARF strings into libiberty
- References: <email@example.com> <201203151833.q2FIXeOs003077__40387.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <201203151848.q2FImnAq004284__18018.firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>> "DJ" == DJ Delorie <email@example.com> writes:
Tom> Finally, there is already stuff in libiberty not related to
Tom> portability. E.g., hashtab or the demangler.
DJ> Yeah, I know, hence my "Should I give up that premise?"
I am not sure there will ever be enough shared code to warrant a new
library, particularly because adding a new library is so expensive --
not just the configury stuff but also adding it to the link lines in the
Makefiles of all the tools that might need it.
I suppose if I had my wish list implemented here, it would be to remove
the portability stuff from libiberty in favor of gnulib, and keep
libiberty as a higher-level library.
Tom> I guess I can just put the whole DW_TAG_ prefix in there. That
Tom> isn't a big deal. Or if you have some other suggestion, I can
Tom> implement it.
DJ> If the macros always prepend something to it, it should be safe
DJ> enough, despite technically violating the spirit of the rule. I have
DJ> no other suggestions.
DJ> But given you've already had the issue with "and", you're already
DJ> seeing problems anyway, so maybe that's a sign that it's not actually
DJ> "safe enough" ?
I think this arises from a bug in cpp, since it issues the -Wc++-compat
warning even if the token in question is only used as an argument to
stringizing. This seems mistaken -- but it seemed advisable to work