This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: (Fwd) Re: Absolute paths in BFD
- To: ian at zembu dot com
- Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Absolute paths in BFD
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:06:38 -0400 (EDT)
- CC: snowball3 at bigfoot dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <3908583E.11552.3CB4AE@localhost> <200004282205.SAA26918@indy.delorie.com> <20000428222828.23316.qmail@daffy.airs.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: 28 Apr 2000 15:28:28 -0700
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@zembu.com>
>
> If you want to reconsider that decision, I could rework the patches
> (although I don't understand why the GCC's way of parameterizing these
> macros is better than that of the other projects).
>
> gcc's way is better because gcc and the binutils share the directories
> include and libiberty.
I didn't know that.
Still, I'm not sure this is a reason good enough to borrow the macros
from GCC, because GCC is quite a different beast. For example, it is
traditionally case-sensitive to file names, and treats, e.g., foo.C as
a C++ source, even on DOS/Windows. (The reason is compatibility to
Unix Makefile's.)
> But please give me
> some hope that the new patches will be reviewed and committed to the
> Binutils CVS tree somewhat faster than the previous ones. It can be
> quite frustrating to go through all the coding and testing once again,
> only to see the patches stuck in the queue for another 6 months ;-).
>
> I wish I could give you that hope, but I can't. If the patch is
> simple, I can approve it quickly. Otherwise, some other maintainer
> has to do it.
To me, these patches look as simple as they can get ;-). With a
couple of minor exceptions, they are actually the same change applied
to several different places.
But I will happily try to make them more simple, if you could tell how
to do that.
> Yes, I think setmode could be a problem. It might be best to test for
> that separately.
Testing (in the Autoconf sense) could be non-trivial. Perhaps using
setmode for DOS and Windows (conditioned on appropriate
system-dependent macros, like __MSDOS__ and _WIN32) would be good
enough?