From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24384 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2002 04:23:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24363 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2002 04:23:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Oct 2002 04:23:03 -0000 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (aoliva2.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.1.156]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g9P4N0J29677; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:23:00 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g9P4MxjC013286; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 01:22:59 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g9P4MwEt013282; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 01:22:58 -0300 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC_FOR_TARGET x linker scripts References: <20021025041638.GB29075@nevyn.them.org> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:23:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20021025041638.GB29075@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01513.txt.bz2 On Oct 25, 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I assume that the -L$$r/ld comes in via @FLAGS_FOR_TARGET@... yes, it > does. Why should the definition in gcc/Makefile.in be any different? > Is there any reason that the same FLAGS_FOR_TARGET and GCC_FOR_TARGET > won't work? Well, gcc/configure.in would have to duplicate the logic of FLAGS_FOR_TARGET, no? > I have to override this in two places now because setting > FLAGS_FOR_TARGET affects the top level, and thus libstdc++-v3 (via > CC_FOR_TARGET), but not GCC. It'd be nice if FLAGS_FOR_TARGET worked > consistently. It should work consistently. I think this patch actually fixes one of the inconsistencies, which was that GCC_FOR_TARGET was not propagated down to sub-bootstrap targets, so the definition gcc/Makefile, without FLAGS_FOR_TARGET, prevailed. The setting in GCC_FOR_TARGET should ideally be semantically (if not syntactically) equivalent to that in the top-level, but we don't want to duplicate the code to do that. > If you don't see anything wrong with this I'll put the patch together. I'd be interested in seeing what you have in mind, yes. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer