Re: A patch for gnu-regex

[jtc at redback dot com (J.T. Conklin)]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl> writes:
Mark>    Either way is fine with me. All I want is regex in glibc 2 :-). Any
Mark>    objections?

Mark> Is this really important?  From an engineering standpoint introducing
Mark> a dependency on glibc may not be the right thing.  I've seen a quite a
Mark> few problems related to regex.h that were caused by getting out of
Mark> sync with glibc.  I'd prefer not to add this to GDB 5.0.

I think Mark makes a good point.  In fact, I vaguely remember
conflicts with regex.c/regex.h that caused those files to be renamed
to gnu-regex.c/gnu-regex.h back in the mid 90's.  

If it is at all important to use the host regular expression routines,
perhaps we should investigate changing the calls used by GDB from the
old BSD re_comp()/re_exec() API to the POSIX.2 regcomp()/regexec() API
and using the host headers/library if the host provides it.  I'd
prefer going that route than special casing glibc.

        --jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin
RedBack Networks