On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/09/2015 11:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Just like libiberty.h. So that C++ programs, such as GDB when built >>> as a C++ program, can use it. >> >> Why is not needed for GCC building with C++ compiler? > > Because it doesn't include it. > > The header of the file claims it is part of GDB, though MAINTAINERS > nowadays says that everything under include/ is owned by GCC.
Wait, what? The actual wording is: "The rule is that if the file exists in the gcc tree then gcc owns it." It originated from this thread, https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2013-11/msg00025.html That's not the first message in the thread, but that's where I remember wanting to see something written down. Perhaps kinda unfortunate for things like include/gdb/gdb-index.h. But at least it's a rule that can be expressed in one sentence, and I don't think it's been a problem.
