From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15773 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2011 17:38:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15765 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2011 17:38:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_GX,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (74.125.121.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:38:25 +0000 Received: from hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.14]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p5QHcOXc008114 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:38:24 -0700 Received: from gyh4 (gyh4.prod.google.com [10.243.50.196]) by hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p5QHcM3T007984 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:38:22 -0700 Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so1962329gyh.36 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.176.2 with SMTP id d2mr701371anp.155.1309109901172; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.232.13 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:38:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110626060843.544C11E8175@cgda.mtv.corp.google.com> From: Chris Demetriou Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [trunk] RFA: translate built-in include paths for sysroot (issue4641076) To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: reply@codereview.appspotmail.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01941.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 07:28, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > It seems to me that what's really wanted here is to change the add_sysroot > flag for the C++ path (all of the C++ paths?), rather than adding special > code to detect paths starting with the sysroot and reinterpret them. I considered doing that, I wasn't sure what (if any) implications that would have on the way gcc normally builds + configures / how it works when other people use flags like --with-gxx-include-dir. I couldn't think of *harm*, but it seemed to me that my change was least likely to cause harm to existing working paths. (That doesn't mean that it's the right change, just the one that I thought I could understand best. 8-) > And > so making configure detect when the --with-gxx-include-dir setting starts > with the sysroot and adjusting the flag accordingly in that case would be > a cleaner solution - that way it would be obvious that the semantics of > the relocation are exactly the same as for other sysrooted paths, whereas > it isn't when the relocation goes through different code paths in the > compiler. yeah, i can do that. thanks for the quick look. chris