From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id B50A13858D35; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:04:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B50A13858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700665450;
	bh=n6veZY66a5QrGVqJ23A20hzHZe7rmFlw20BYcAhBD9k=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=yYZDpMhNtAXKk/fOGmDVN+jKcBB+llmWyMw7V97CEJnx0oGqbnD2xhRDFGj0/XMQs
	 JeDBEVsbYVK+220IhFWvSLAf10oRC6O00X/ZHNOcj3vJVifEbD39Izw5KYfbpNqqj7
	 tjRjWbo3Iw8m537iBXuZjV+6nF+YueDr7hb2tnHc=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug other/112671] libiconv support lacks separate
 --with-libiconv-{include,lib}
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:04:10 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: other
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112671-4-hxzOd5uD8A@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112671-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112671-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112671

--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot U=
ni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #3 from Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 <arsen at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> hm, actually, I think I confused reports - sorry.
>
> do you know if this worked a short while ago?  and if so, how did such a
> configuration look?

I have no idea: at least AFAICS back to the gcc-11 branch (didn't look
further) there was only --with-libiconv-prefix.

Still it's inconsistent with how many (all?) other support libs are
handled.=