Ian Lance Taylor - Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59 (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

• From: Ian Lance Taylor
• To: "Joseph S. Myers"
• Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Paolo Bonzini , gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, newlib at sourceware dot org
• Date: 08 Feb 2007 07:00:02 -0800
• Subject: Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
• References: 20070111225346.GA1335@nevyn.them.org <20070207193352.GA13757@nevyn.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702072344050.7123@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20070208032909.GA8419@nevyn.them.org> <45CADD5E.404@lu.unisi.ch> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702081239290.12368@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <45CB1C16.10407@lu.unisi.ch> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702081251340.12368@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20070208131821.GA2860@nevyn.them.org> <45CB28BB.8050805@lu.unisi.ch> <20070208141800.GA6649@nevyn.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702081442160.25268@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

"Joseph S. Myers" joseph@codesourcery.com writes:

• 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.)

I completely agree that this is how it should work. Unfortunately, this is not how autoconf {2.x,x>13} works. I don't agree with a number of the decisions made by the autoconf maintainers. However, I do think that as long we use autoconf, there is some benefit to be gained by following autoconf's default behaviour.

Changing how we invoke configure is less of a change than requiring MPFR, and my opinion is that on balance we will be better off changing than forging our own path.

Ian

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Paolo Bonzini
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Michael Eager
• References:
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Daniel Jacobowitz
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Joseph S. Myers
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Daniel Jacobowitz
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Paolo Bonzini
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Joseph S. Myers
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Paolo Bonzini
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Joseph S. Myers
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Daniel Jacobowitz
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Paolo Bonzini
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Daniel Jacobowitz
  • Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
    * From: Joseph S. Myers