Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>]

> Yao> Personally, I still prefer a separated configure/makefile in common/,
> Yao> because,
> Yao> 1.  if my patch works, configure/make is not a problem,
> Yao> 2.  if we look forward, there should be quite a few *.c and *.h files in
> Yao> common in the future.  Write rules in both gdb/Makefile.in and
> Yao> gdbserver/Makefile.in doesn't scale.
> 
> I think the most important thing is that if you want to keep the
> common/configure stuff, then please fix the existing problems that have
> been reported.  Maybe it is just the GNU make-ism at this point, I
> haven't kept track.

On my end of things, I actually do not like the multiple layers of
miniature configure scripts. These things just keep doing the same
checks over and over for the most part.  It's particularly visible
on Windows, were configure takes ages because spawning a script is
utterly inefficient.  (and as such, Tom's proposal to remove the
configure script in gdb/testsuite seems like a good idea to me too)

That being said, as long as it works, it's not of uber importance
to me but I am not certain that argument number 2 above from Yao
really is that much work. So, if we fix things fast, I do not mind
continuing with the present approach. (does anyone know what the
remaining issues are, though?)

-- 
Joel