Re: [PATCH] Add -p native and -e native

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 05:58:34PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >> Except for this narrow multilib case, doesn't this actually make it 
> >> impossible to do a cross-arch build?
> > 
> > For cross the term "native" doesn't make sense, so it would seem valid to 
> > simply not support that setting with a cross (not multilib) dwz.  I.e. if 
> > ./native can't be executed assume cross-ness and don't support -p native.
> 
> I've tried yet another variant.  Instead of trying to generate an
> executable and execute it, we generate an object and test properties
> using readelf.
> 
> This should no longer have the cross-build problem.
> 
> WDYT?

Can we take a step back, because I think I lost the plot, sorry.

Why are we going through all this?

So with this when something is build as 32bit it can use 64bit as
"native" pointer size. Or if something is cross compiled to
little-endian it can still report big-endian as "native",

But when does that ever make sense?  Why would one run the 32bit
binary on a 64bit system and wanting the default -p native be 64bit
instead of 32bit? Wouldn't one install and run the actual "native"
64-bit binary in that case?

Thanks,

Mark