From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8273 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2005 17:15:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.gnu.org) (199.232.76.165) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Feb 2005 17:15:41 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCh5-00039S-7e for listarch-gnats-devel@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:29:03 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCg0-0002fg-Ow for help-gnats@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:27:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCfx-0002dB-B6 for help-gnats@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:27:54 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CyCfw-0002ai-VP for help-gnats@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:27:53 -0500 Received: from [207.17.137.64] (helo=colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1CyCOp-0004UE-AI for help-gnats@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:10:11 -0500 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id j17H9KBm051607; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:09:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mdb@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id j17H9Ke67738; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:09:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mdb@juniper.net) To: "Mike M. Volokhov" In-Reply-To: <20050207174424.136b4b5b.mishka@apk.od.ua> References: <20050105222435.GA23939@wookimus.net> <20050106111441.64c255e3.mishka@apk.od.ua> <20050106170435.GA2921@wookimus.net> <20050207174424.136b4b5b.mishka@apk.od.ua> From: "Mark D. Baushke" X-Mailer: MH-E 7.82+cvs; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1 X-Face: #8D_6URD2G%vC.hzU Cc: help-gnats@gnu.org Subject: Re: gnatsd problems with 4.0.1 X-BeenThere: help-gnats@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion about GNU GNATS List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: help-gnats-bounces+listarch-gnats-devel=sources.redhat.com@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnats-bounces+listarch-gnats-devel=sources.redhat.com@gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2005-q1/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 Mike M. Volokhov writes: > On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:04:35 -0600 > Chad Walstrom wrote: > > First, excuse me please for the delayed answer. :-( > > > Mike M. Volokhov wrote: > > > Could you explain me please what a reason to have libiberty code in > > > GNATS tree? > > > > For historical and supposedly portability reasons. Frankly, I'm not > > that comfortable with it being there. I haven't had much time lately, > > but I'd love to audit the GNATS codebase to find out what functions in > > ./libiberty are actually being used and decide either to adopt them > > completely by moving them into the ./gnats directory OR drop them > > completely. There was a lot of cruft pulled in from my last update. We > > can always roll back the CVS to the point before the libiberty update > > (which I've been contemplating since the day I mistakenly committed it > > to TRUNK rather than the dev branch like I wanted). > > > > Any opinions in either direction? > > Yes, that's exactly I've asked why. Including libiberty in GNATS > codebase depends on how much it is used by the project. Unfortunately, > libiberty itself seems have not official distribution and in addition it > may provide some functionality which cannot be acheived by standard C > library. > > > If someone is willing to do the audit, let me know. It may not take > > much time, but most of my spare time right now is going toward a > > certification class, :-/, and caring for my son, :-). > > I've done some sort of GNATS sources audit to know how much project > dependends on libiberty code. Well, seems it is not too hard dependent! > I've used libiberty.h header file to obtain a list of provided functions > and ran a simple script across gnats/*.[ch] files. It shows a results at > the end of this mail message. > > So, only six functions are used by GNATS, when libiberty provides about > 40. Only two functions (asprintf and vasprintf) are nor POSIX nor > standard C relevant (but included in both GNU and BSD libc). Three > functions (xstrdup, xmalloc, xrealloc) are totally libiberty-own, but > can be easy replaced with their standard equivalents. > > Thus, I propose to eliminate dependency on libiberty completely. > > Any comments? I would suggest consideration of including the GNULIB versions of those functions as an alternative. This is much easier than trying to keep libiberty up-to-date. cvs -d :ext:anoncvs@savannah.gnu.org/cvsroot/gnulib co gnulib this does probably make a vote of moving to a use of autoconf and automake as a part of building the configure and related files in order to make this easier to use. The typical approach would be to create a lib and m4 directory for including the relevant code from a gnulib checkout directory into the gnats source base. There is a tool that can be used to pull into the gnats tree any module that GNULIB provides. See the gnulib/README after you checkout a copy of it. -- Mark _______________________________________________ Help-gnats mailing list Help-gnats@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnats