From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1489 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2004 16:31:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1427 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 16:31:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.evcohs.com) (66.17.141.91) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Sep 2004 16:31:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 31714 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 16:31:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [10.0.1.12]) (66.180.104.54) by 66.17.141.91 with SMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:31:21 +0000 Message-ID: <4151A867.5030301@evcohs.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:59:00 -0000 From: "E. Weddington" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc Subject: How to stop GCC from searching for components in --prefix on Windows host? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01289.txt.bz2 Hello! I regularly build GCC for the AVR target on a Windows host (--host=mingw32) usually with some configured --prefix=X. The binary toolset is redistributed to other users who typically don't install it in X. There have been some problems where X on the build machine is on a particular drive, and on the install machine X is on a drive with removable media, then GCC sometimes craps out and doesn't properly locate all the components. Is there some way to get GCC to *not* search for components in the configured prefix, but preserve its other search rules? In looking through the manual, I found the GCC_EXEC_PREFIX environment variable. Though some users have reported that using this doesn't completely solve the problem (and personally I'm not totally convinced that it doesn't solve the problem). Is it correct that using GCC_EXEC_PREFIX will cause GCC to look there first and then continue with the rest of the search (--prefix, PATH, etc.)? Is there something in the manuals that I'm overlooking? If it requires patching the source, then could someone point out which source code module/functions to take a look at? (Please CC me in your reply as it's difficult for me to reply to digest versions of the gcc list that I receive.) Thanks for your time and help. Eric