Michael Eager - 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.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
- From: Michael Eager
- To: Erik Christiansen
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva , Ian Lance Taylor , "Joseph S. Myers" , Daniel Jacobowitz , Paolo Bonzini , gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:08:55 -0800
- Subject: Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
- References: <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> <m37iuslmod.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <45CB5453.3080109@eagercon.com> <or64ab9ajc.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <45CC20D0.2010200@eagercon.com> <20070209083424.GA7770@dd.nec.com.au>
Erik Christiansen wrote:
If neither --host nor --target are specified, we're building native.
OK
If both --target and --host default to native, then specifying one or
both creates a single or double cross.
OK
But autoconf doesn't seem to distinguish between --host or --build being specified explicitly and when it guesses what they should be.
--build seems to be a synonym for --host, so its only useful purpose that I've imagined so far is to specify a native build if configure fails to detect that to the user's satisfaction. (And that could be done with --host, if that did not spuriously trigger a cross.)
I've built compilers for Cywin on Linux: --host=i686-cygwin --build=i686-linux-gnu --target=powerpc. I might also build --host=i686-Solaris on --build=i686-linux-gnu
(If there's a need to build a native compiler as if it were a cross, then --host and --target would only need to be specified as native.)
More guessing than that wouldn't help this cross compiler builder. (On PowerPc, AVR, and V850, the required fudges haven't been too bad so far, IIRC. But then I'm a few tool releases behind.)
Unfortunately, it seems that every time I update or upgrade my system, it installs newer versions of autoconf and automake. I don't notice that this has broken things until I try to make a configuration change. Then I'm off down a rat hole trying to debug autoconf once more.
-- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
* From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
- References:
- 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 - Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
* From: Ian Lance Taylor - Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
* From: Michael Eager - Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
* From: Alexandre Oliva - Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
* From: Michael Eager - Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
* From: Erik Christiansen
- Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |