Removing target-libiberty (was: Re: Libiberty: POSIXify psignal definition)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>]

On Wed, 18 May 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > At this point, though, I'm tempted to say "there's no such thing as a
> > target libiberty" and rip all the target-libiberty rules out, and let
>
> Yes please.  I've been arguing for that for some time.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00410.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-03/msg00002.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-03/msg00012.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01231.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2011-03/msg00206.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-03/msg00465.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02304.html

I thought you had the ball on this, but I don't see anything
happened since the above was written.  I could just add clauses
for my own targets, but I want this to happen, so I'll pick it
up if it's on the floor.

It seems none in approval capacity have any objection to
(figuratively) s/target-libiberty//g in toplevel/configure.ac on
all branches.  Is an --enable-target-libiberty or
--with-target-libiberty needed?  (I'd just rather not.)

What would be an approvable test procedure?
Is it enough to test it on native x86_64-linux and cris-axis-elf
(a newlib target) with old and new/breaking newlib?

At a glance this would partially fix PR47836, and completely fix
PR23656, PR47733, PR49247.

brgds, H-P