The old libiberty/cplus-dem.c?

The old libiberty/cplus-dem.c?

[H.J. Lu]

libiberty/cplus-dem.c in binutils seems older than the one in gcc
2.95.1. Are them from thes same source?

-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

Re: The old libiberty/cplus-dem.c?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
   From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)

   libiberty/cplus-dem.c in binutils seems older than the one in gcc
   2.95.1. Are them from thes same source?

They are conceptually the same, but as a matter of practice the
binutils CVS repository is completely distinct from the gcc CVS
repository.

Perhaps we should make a practice of importing the binutils libiberty
directory from the gcc one.

Ian

Re: The old libiberty/cplus-dem.c?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19990829194121.3918.qmail@daffy.airs.com >you write:
  >    Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
  >    From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
  > 
  >    libiberty/cplus-dem.c in binutils seems older than the one in gcc
  >    2.95.1. Are them from thes same source?
  > 
  > They are conceptually the same, but as a matter of practice the
  > binutils CVS repository is completely distinct from the gcc CVS
  > repository.
  > 
  > Perhaps we should make a practice of importing the binutils libiberty
  > directory from the gcc one.
One of the other approaches would be to have a unified CVS repository across
the projects -- I've been kicking the idea around with the gdb folks recently
to get their initial impressions of the idea.

Any thoughts Ian?

jeff

Re: The old libiberty/cplus-dem.c?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:57:47 -0600
   From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>

     > Perhaps we should make a practice of importing the binutils libiberty
     > directory from the gcc one.
   One of the other approaches would be to have a unified CVS repository across
   the projects -- I've been kicking the idea around with the gdb folks recently
   to get their initial impressions of the idea.

   Any thoughts Ian?

I have no problem with that.  It works at Cygnus, and it ought to work
on sourceware.

I think we should talk about who has control over the shared parts of
the tree.  For gcc and binutils, or gcc and gdb, I think that is just
the top level configury stuff and libiberty.  For binutils and gdb, it
is also the bfd, opcodes, and include directories.

I suppose we'd have to be that much more careful about who got write
access, since anybody with write access to any part of the tree would
be able to get write access to the whole tree.  However, this is
probably not a major concern.

Ian

Re: The old libiberty/cplus-dem.c?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19990829203216.4101.qmail@daffy.airs.com >you write:
  > I think we should talk about who has control over the shared parts of
  > the tree.  For gcc and binutils, or gcc and gdb, I think that is just
  > the top level configury stuff and libiberty.  For binutils and gdb, it
  > is also the bfd, opcodes, and include directories.
This is the general concern everyone I've talked to has had.  I'd tend to
want to put the binutils folks in charge of bfd, opcodes and include since
they're the ones that usually end up working on that stuff.  The gdb folks
tend to do most of their work in gdb itself, gdb should also have readline,
mmalloc, tui and the other things where they are the exclusive owner/user.

The toplevel configury & libiberty are the most problematical based on my
experiences since they're shared by every project.  Thus my desire to at least
cut down on the number of diverging copies.

  > I suppose we'd have to be that much more careful about who got write
  > access, since anybody with write access to any part of the tree would
  > be able to get write access to the whole tree.  However, this is
  > probably not a major concern.
Actually, I think we can make this work reasonably well.  I've been told there
is a version of the CVS server which puts the lockfiles into a separate dir 
than the CVS files themselves.

Assuming that is true, we could make the entire repository world readable, but
each subdir would be "owned" by a project and would be group writable.  The
toplevel configury and such would have its own group.  It's a fairly minor
extension of what we're doing right now.

I don't know all the details of how the web CVS trees work, but we might want
to have wwwdocs/{binutils,gdb,gcc,...} so that we don't need a separate CVS
repo for just the web sites.

I haven't worked through any more of the details since I just floated the
idea a week or two ago when I was in Sunnyvale.  The gdb folks showed an
interest (with similar concerns), and I'd like to bring gcc into the fold
(which will require busting through some major political roadblocks).


jeff