From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28745 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2012 16:41:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 28628 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2012 16:41:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:41:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAEGf3dS021007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:41:04 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAEGexxL023758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:40:59 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI web page, generated using script inside CVS tree in gdb/contrib/ari directory References: <002701cdc0b9$542d2560$fc877020$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20121112180707.GQ4847@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20121112180707.GQ4847@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:07:07 -0800") Message-ID: <87sj8c2l44.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> But perhaps we should also look at possibly importing gnulib's stat Joel> and sys_wait modules? Not a trivial change in the sense that it could Joel> be not equivalent to what we have now, and thus have unintended Joel> consequences; but perhaps worth a shot. I think that gdb_stat.h and Joel> all other such headers were GDB's own way of doing what gnulib does Joel> in general. FWIW I tend to favor more use of gnulib in gdb. In general I think the pros outweigh the cons; especially since it seems reasonably easy to get fixes into gnulib, and because importing a new gnulib snapshot is also simple. The pros seem to be -- shared development, good documentation, and letting the main gdb source use standard headers and standard functions. I think the primary con is that a gnulib module may have a bug, and then we have to fix it elsewhere first. This doesn't seem to be a major problem. Tom