On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > >> On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Well, if libiberty is going to be replaced en masse by gnulib, then >> >> there's no sense in me cleaning up libiberty's regex. >> >> libiberty cannot be replaced completely, because there are bits that >> do not even exist in gnulib. And given the time frame, I don't think > > The relevant question (long-term) is not whether they exist now in gnulib, > but whether equivalent functionality exists in or would be appropriate to > add to gnulib. > > If gnulib has something equivalent with a different interface, migrating > to that interface might be appropriate. And if it has nothing equivalent, > adding the libiberty code to gnulib might be appropriate.
gnulib does not have any support for the simple-object API to read and write object files in different file formats. - David
