Re: (Fwd) Re: Absolute paths in BFD

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>]

> Date: 28 Apr 2000 15:28:28 -0700
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@zembu.com>
>
>    If you want to reconsider that decision, I could rework the patches
>    (although I don't understand why the GCC's way of parameterizing these
>    macros is better than that of the other projects).
> 
> gcc's way is better because gcc and the binutils share the directories
> include and libiberty.

I didn't know that.

Still, I'm not sure this is a reason good enough to borrow the macros
from GCC, because GCC is quite a different beast.  For example, it is
traditionally case-sensitive to file names, and treats, e.g., foo.C as
a C++ source, even on DOS/Windows.  (The reason is compatibility to
Unix Makefile's.)

>    But please give me
>    some hope that the new patches will be reviewed and committed to the
>    Binutils CVS tree somewhat faster than the previous ones.  It can be
>    quite frustrating to go through all the coding and testing once again,
>    only to see the patches stuck in the queue for another 6 months ;-).
> 
> I wish I could give you that hope, but I can't.  If the patch is
> simple, I can approve it quickly.  Otherwise, some other maintainer
> has to do it.

To me, these patches look as simple as they can get ;-).  With a
couple of minor exceptions, they are actually the same change applied
to several different places.

But I will happily try to make them more simple, if you could tell how
to do that.

> Yes, I think setmode could be a problem.  It might be best to test for
> that separately.

Testing (in the Autoconf sense) could be non-trivial.  Perhaps using
setmode for DOS and Windows (conditioned on appropriate
system-dependent macros, like __MSDOS__ and _WIN32) would be good
enough?