From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-102969-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23580 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2004 07:14:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23570 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 07:13:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mout2.freenet.de) (194.97.50.155)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 07:13:59 -0000
Received: from [194.97.55.191] (helo=mx7.freenet.de)
	by mout2.freenet.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.42)
	id 1C9IN5-0004tm-1m
	for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:13:59 +0200
Received: from g61e4.g.pppool.de ([80.185.97.228] helo=[192.168.0.172])
	by mx7.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID rc040203@freenet.de) (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.42 #1)
	id 1C9IN4-0002il-Hs
	for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:13:59 +0200
Subject: Re: Obsolete building in source dir?
From: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>
To: GCC List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <9H8YpPfXw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
References: <00f801c497a2$e2deb9c0$92b92997@bagio>
	 <oru0twubfc.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	 <9H7p0y$1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <9H7p0y$1w-B@khms.westfalen.de>
	 <or8yb77c6m.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	 <9H8YpPfXw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1095664433.4989.967.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:51:00 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01156.txt.bz2

On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 14:01, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> aoliva@redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva)  wrote on 18.09.04 in <or8yb77c6m.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>:
> 
> > On Sep 18, 2004, kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
> >
> > > aoliva@redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva)  wrote on 17.09.04 in
> > > <oru0twubfc.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>:
> > >> On Sep 16, 2004, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Instead of doing this you could consider to systematically using
> > >> > $host(_alias), $build(_alias), $target(_alias) builddir-subdirectories,
> > >> > no matter if cross-compiling or not.
> > >>
> > >> This wouldn't quite work if we actually need different builds for say
> > >> build, host and target, but they're all the same.
> >
> > > That's trivial to fix by using a {host,build,target}- prefix.
> >
> > Which brings us back to exactly what I had suggested before Ralf's
> > counter-proposal :-)
> 
> Wrong. You proposed build-gcc, he proposed $buils(_alias)-gcc,
No, I proposed
$({build|host|target})/<subpackage>

or

$({build|host|target}_alias)/<subpackage>

i.e. to extend the building scheme that _already_ is applied for
building target-subpackages in case of cross-compilation (aka.
--target-subdir)

I am already applying a variant this configuration scheme in other
(non-gcc) packages.

>  I proposed  
> build-$build(_alias)-gcc.

Ralf