From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6079 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2011 10:52:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6070 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2011 10:52:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:52:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862B92BB0CF; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 05:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3oip7yyRoADu; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 05:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90052BB0CC; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 05:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5CAA2145A56; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:52:24 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: Tom Tromey , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver Message-ID: <20110301105224.GK30306@adacore.com> References: <4D55FAB4.7090001@codesourcery.com> <4D648A5F.8050607@codesourcery.com> <4D65D5B7.1000902@codesourcery.com> <20110301044144.GH30306@adacore.com> <4D6C882B.7010801@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D6C882B.7010801@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 > > 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