From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27740 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2004 17:27:47 -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 27699 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 17:27:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.evcohs.com) (66.17.141.91) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Sep 2004 17:27:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 11807 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 17:27:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [10.0.1.12]) (66.180.104.54) by 66.17.141.91 with SMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:27:45 +0000 Message-ID: <4151B5AD.6000005@evcohs.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:56:00 -0000 From: "E. Weddington" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Korn CC: 'gcc' Subject: Re: How to stop GCC from searching for components in --prefix on Windows host? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01297.txt.bz2 Dave Korn wrote: > The error is with your users, not gcc! Heh, well, it's fair enough to say >that it's a limitation of gcc that it gets hard-coded install paths built >into it. > > > Exactly. Having hard-coded install paths works fine for *nix systems, but, ...well everybody knows the general consensus for MS's stuff.... >>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? >> >> > > How about supplying a dummy path to the --prefix argument when you build >your releases, something that points to C:\ or whatever, something that's >pretty much guaranteed to be there on every system you need to support but >also pretty much guaranteed not to contain any executables that would get in >the way? > > I wish I could guarantee that every system is going to have a C:\. In practice, most will, but sure as I say it, somebody's going to have a system that won't have it. I'm certainly not afraid to patch this distribution to take out the search in --prefix for components as the current searching of PATH (or whatever it does after searching --prefix) works just fine. My questions would be: is this a sane thing to do (considering the problem)? Where would one do this in the code? Is it relatively localized? and... would this situation be considered a bug? should I fill out a bug report? Thanks Eric