pending/1108: Re: [RFA] ObjC Testsuite

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>]

>Number:         1108
>Category:       pending
>Synopsis:       Re: [RFA] ObjC Testsuite
>Confidential:   yes
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   unknown
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Mar 03 16:18:01 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     
>Release:        
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
 In gdb.objc/Makefile.in, the distclean goal needs these commands:
 
   distclean maintainer-clean realclean: clean
   	-rm -f Makefile config.status config.log
 
 Specifically, distclean must remove config.status.  The release
 packaging process depends on this.  First it configures the whole tree
 and then it makes 'distclean' in the whole tree.  If a config.status
 file is left alive after 'make distclean', then it will get into the
 gdb.tar tarball, and 'configure' will fail because the config.status
 file already exists.
 
 As Elena Z mentioned, the name of the pthreads library varies
 from system to system.  We've encountered -lpthreads, -lpthread,
 and -lthread.  We have to figure out a way to handle this.
 
 I think the cleanest way is to add 'proc gdb_compile_objc'
 in lib/gdb.exp, similar to 'proc gdb_compile_pthreads'.  Then we
 can mess with the internals of 'proc gdb_compile_objc' as needed.
 For instance, on my system, native i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.2,
 gcc needs only '-lobjc' without any explicit thread library in
 order to link Objective C programs.  Fernando N and Mark S,
 what do you think?
 
 I'm okay with the names 'myclass.exp' and 'myclass.c'.  I wouldn't mind
 if they became a bit less generic than 'my....'.  I don't like the names
 'objc-class.exp' and 'objc-class.m' because these are already in the
 objc directory, and 'objc-' just eats 5 characters of uniqueness that we
 need for 8.3 uniqueness.
 
 On the next submission, please use 'cvs diff -N' to include the new
 files in the diff, rather than attaching a diff + a tarball.
 That's easier for me.
 
 We need one or more maintainers for the new gdb.objc.  I volunteer to
 be one of the maintainers.  Adam, are you willing to be a maintainer?
 
 Also, this whole review process is getting messy, we are going to have
 several people pushing Adam in different directions.  I would like to
 figure out *first* who are going to be the maintainer(s) of
 gdb.objc, and then those people should be the reviewers of this patch.
 
 Michael C
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: