This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFA: consolidate DWARF strings into libiberty
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:09:43 -0700
- 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> <email@example.com>
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "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.
That won't really fix libiberty being an ever growing kitchen sink.
How hard would it really be to make it easier to add new libraries?
It's not like we're expecting 100.
But given the pushback for even one new library, I think we're
unnecessarily slowing ourselves down.