Re: [patches] libdfp

[Mark Mitchell <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ryan Arnold wrote:

>> If we wanted to go with the classic -enable-addons=dfp, <and others>
>> approach it would be more difficult.  We'd have to circumvent the normal
>> -enable-addons process and invoke the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS(dfp) for the dfp
>> portion.  This could probably be special cased in the GLIBC configure
>> script.
> 
> There are a few other side effects of doing this as well.

I don't know enough about the machinery here to know what's reasonable,
but it sounds like it might be hard.  Whatever we pick now is probably
going to lock us in for the long term; compatibility concerns are going
to mean that if libfdp is separate now, it's probably separate forever.

I guess the question is, if this is a stand-alone library, why is the
EGLIBC repository the right place for it?  We can do it, but we want to
make sure EGLIBC doesn't become SourceForge. :-)

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(650) 331-3385 x713