This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:52:24 +0400
- Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver
- References: <m3sjvul875.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4D55FAB4.7090001@codesourcery.com> <m3pqquhcis.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3r5bafqhl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4D648A5F.8050607@codesourcery.com> <m3oc62k8wy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4D65D5B7.1000902@codesourcery.com> <m3tyfo82a8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20110301044144.GH30306@adacore.com> <4D6C882B.7010801@codesourcery.com>
> > 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?)
> >
>
> AFAIK, there are three problems,
Thanks for sending the list (and the patches! :-). Before going ahead
and seeing if I review them, I'd like to have Pedro's word on this
as well. I think that Tom is OK with continuing a little further with
the approach you prefer, I'm fine too, but if Pedro is opposed (I think
he has valid reasons), then we need to discuss further and reach
a decision, one way or the other. I say we might be almost there,
and give it one final push and see.
--
Joel