On 11 July 2016 at 14:40, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez > <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 23 June 2016 at 18:02, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> But on the other hand, the idea of maintaining multiple gnulib >>> copies isn't that appealing either. Considering that the long >>> term desired result ends up with a libiberty that is no longer a >>> portability library, but instead only an utilities library, then to >>> get to that stage, the other programs in the binutils-gdb repo which >>> rely on libiberty too, binutils proper, gas, ld, gold, etc., need >>> to be converted to use gnulib as well. And then a single >>> gnulib sounds even more appealing. >> >> AFAICT, the only "utilities" found in libiberty not appropriate for >> gnulib is the demangler. That would be more appropriate for a >> libdemangler library shared among all gnutools. > > Does gnulib have a functional equivalent to the pex and simple-object > mini-libraries?
I don't really know. Part of the GSoC project is to figure out the answer to such questions. In any case, the main goal of the GSoC is to start using gnulib, so that next time we need something not provided by libiberty we can simply import it from gnulib rather than having to implement it ourselves or manually import it into libiberty and keep it in sync. Cheers, Manuel.
