This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59


On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> > ... this, which was likely implemented without any discussion with 
> > people really building cross tools.
> 
> Speak for yourself - I like this, despite the migration challenge.
> It's useful for uniformity of a set of cross tools, one of which may
> just happen to match $host.

I think:

* Uniformity should mean that $target-$tool is *always* installed, 
regardless of whether or not native (GCC does this for at least some 
tools, I don't think binutils does).  Plain $tool should be installed when 
native as well.

* Whether one of (build, host, target) is specified explicitly should not 
cause any difference in behavior from it being defaulted from another one 
of them or from config.guess.  This means you can choose to completely 
ignore what the defaults are and be explicit about everything.

* If you want to build an explicitly cross tool despite host == target, or 
act like you are cross compiling despite build == host, or build a native 
tool (i.e. one using the native directory layout and installed as plain 
"gcc") despite host != target, or act like you aren't cross compiling (so 
can run execute tests for $host) despite build != host, these should be 
determined by explicit configure options; not by which of build, host and 
target where specified explicitly and which were defaulted.  (And not by 
older autoconf's experiments to see if it can execute a program built for 
the host.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]