From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6697 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2015 13:46:24 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6092 invoked by uid 89); 31 Mar 2015 13:46:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:46:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2VDkKUn010743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:46:20 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2VDkJXn024921; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:46:19 -0400 Message-ID: <551AA52A.9000000@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:46:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H.J. Lu" CC: Binutils , GDB Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Add --with-system-zlib in bfd References: <20150326155711.GA10088@gmail.com> <20150331061337.GA30996@vapier> <551A78D4.7050804@redhat.com> <551A7CB1.4060101@redhat.com> <551A8907.6070309@redhat.com> <551A8FD9.50807@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01041.txt.bz2 On 03/31/2015 02:43 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 03/31/2015 01:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They're all the same. Just a couple doesn't define zlibdir or zlibinc. >>> If zlib.m4 is changed, I will use it and GCC can also use it. But I >>> don't know if other packages use zlib.m4. >> >> Please change it. Packages not in the tree can replace zlib.m4 with >> something else if they need it, or adjust to the new body, and thus >> end up consistent with the rest of the toolchain. >> >> "git blame" shows that zlib.m4 was invented exactly to make >> sure bfd/gdb use the same zlib switches and checks: >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-10/msg00600.html >> > > These are changes I checked in. Thank you. -- Pedro Alves