From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27482 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2003 11:32:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27280 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2003 11:32:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl) (213.192.72.1) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 2003 11:32:51 -0000 Received: from localhost by delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA08012; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:33:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl: macro owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:32:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Alexandre Oliva cc: Nathanael Nerode , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Technical University of Gdansk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2 On 10 Jun 2003, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Well, if I specify --host, I mean I want to use a different alias than > > the one that is expanded by config.sub. > > --host has absolutely nothing to do with config.sub. --host defaults Has it? AFAIR, whatever you specify as --host gets passed through config.sub before it gets assigned to $host (I'm prepending that "$" now to disambiguate variable references). > to --build, that defaults to the output of config.guess. If you want > to override --build, just do it, and it will be propagated to host as But it will be substituted by config.sub first and the original value won't be propagated to $host_alias, will it? > well. If you mean to specify different --build and --hosts, that's a > cross. If you specify --build and --host and they're identical, > that's a native for now, but it'll eventually be a cross because > there's no point in specifying --host if you don't want a cross. Agreed, as long as there is a way to have $host_alias and $target_alias set up as desired. > > The change is not purely internal > > to the compilation process -- there are examples, binutils and gcc > > inclusive, where this alias gets propagated to file names, e.g. as a > > prefix to executables or as a name of the tooldir. > > That's --target, something entirely different. Hmm: $ locate libbfd-2.13.2.1.so /usr/i386-linux/mips64el-linux/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so /usr/i386-linux/mipsel-linux/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so /usr/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so $ Where does that "i386-linux" above come from, then? That's nitpicking anyway -- the same comment applies to $target_alias equally well. > > I'd like to see this capability preserved, not necessarily exactly the > > way it's being done now. One possibility for host_alias and also > > target_alias is to default to build_alias and host_alias instead of host > > and target, respectively, as it happens now. > > Huh? Where is it that host_alias defaults to build or build_alias? > In autoconf, it defaults to neither. If --host is not specified, > host_alias remains blank, not the same as build_alias, not the same as That's an internal implementation detail -- I simplified to avoid complicated dissertations. AFAIK, if $host_alias is non-empty it is its value that gets propagated to file names, otherwise the value of $host is used (ditto about $target_alias and $target). This is what I mean by stating "$host_alias defaults to $host" (i.e. I am not really interested in how autoconf handles ${build,host,target}_alias" internally, but in the end result visible to a user). And that's probably the source of confusion. And I am not sure why it needs to be done in such a complicated way. > nonopt, not the same as the output of config.guess. Nathan was kind > enough to write macros that do exactly what you want, AFAICT, setting > {build,host,target}_noncanonical, which is what we'd now use for what > we used to use {build,host,target}_alias, whose meaning is slightly > different in autoconf 2.5x. I.e., it does what you already. Well, this is probably an option, but I don't know why such a complication necessary. Have you seen the dependency graphs I sent yesterday? I believe my proposal is the simplest solution. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +