On 02/14/2015 05:29 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > 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: >>> 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."
I was paraphrasing, and simplified it. That distinction seems irrelevant to me here because the file does exist in the gcc tree. It's necessary to build libiberty (for libiberty/floatformat.o). It's a fact that the header claims it is part of GDB: ~~~~~~ /* IEEE floating point support declarations, for GDB, the GNU Debugger. Copyright (C) 1991-2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This file is part of GDB. (...) ~~~~~~ I guess it should say that it is part of libiberty instead. > 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. I'm confused -- I didn't say it was a problem, nor expressed any concern with the rule. I just was pointing out facts. ISTM that the procedure here is to push this change first through the gcc repo first, and then merge it to binutils-gdb git. Is that wrong? Thanks, Pedro Alves
