From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: --sysroot-suffix
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:04:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41EB3939.2010104@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050117033833.GA31812@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Would a --sysroot option work for you instead? I can't think of any
> realistic configurations where GCC and LD would have different
> sysroots, so passing it down from gcc makes some sense.
I thought about this, but it seemed more complicated.
To do what you suggest, I would have to make more invasive changes to
the GCC driver. Because the driver can't assume that binutils supports
the new option, I was just modifying the linker spec for the target in
question. (That target also defines SYSROOT_SUFFIX_SPEC.) I don't know
of a way for a spec to request that the driver substitute in the current
sysroot.
In summary, to do what you're suggesting, the way this would work would be:
1) Modify the linker to support --sysroot. This would be along the
lines of my current patch, except that it would smply override the
calculated sysroot.
2) Modify the GCC driver to support a new spec substitution character,
like "%r".
3) Modify the GCC target in question to use "%r" appropriately in the
link spec, so as to append the right suffix.
I'm willing to do that if the binutils people will pre-approve that
approach in concept and prefer it to my current patch. However, I'm not
sure I see a major advantage. My current patch will work for the Darwin
folks too, so far as I can tell; they would just provide a relative path
from the configured binutils sysroot to the actual location of the
sysroot they want the linker to use.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-17 4:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 3:22 Mark Mitchell
2005-01-17 3:38 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-01-17 4:04 ` Mark Mitchell [this message]
2005-01-17 10:54 ` Richard Sandiford
2005-01-17 11:37 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2005-01-17 11:44 ` Richard Sandiford
2005-01-17 14:33 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-01-17 14:47 ` Richard Sandiford
2005-01-17 14:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-01-17 16:33 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-01-18 15:54 ` Richard Sandiford
2005-01-18 16:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-01-18 16:10 ` Richard Sandiford
2005-01-18 17:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-01-18 17:07 ` Alexandre Oliva
2005-01-18 17:24 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-01-18 18:22 ` Richard Sandiford
2005-01-18 18:26 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-01-19 2:45 ` Alan Modra
2005-01-19 5:14 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-01-19 11:49 ` Richard Sandiford
2005-01-19 15:50 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-01-17 19:56 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41EB3939.2010104@codesourcery.com \
--to=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=binutils@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=drow@false.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).