This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: (Fwd) Re: Absolute paths in BFD
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:06:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.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.)
That is not relevant to things like IS_DIR_SEPARATOR. gcc can just
ignore issues of file name case, while still paying attention to
issues like directory and path separators.
> 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.
Simple means not requiring any thought, not small. It's easy to write
a small patch which requires a great deal of thought. Your patches
required a number of thoughts; I tried to list them all in my earlier
message.
> 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?
Why is an autoconf test non-trivial? Just see whether setmode exists.
I'm not concerned about a setmode function that does something else.
Ian