From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [toplevel] Gas install name problem from autoconf 2.5x
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3bru1svf7.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030903144928.GA7255@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> Well, up to now, it didn't make any difference. We could use the third
> option:
> - Don't pass $target unless it was given on the command line.
>
> This is definitely a good idea, but I was going to do that after most
> directories had converted.
I think that to make things work with the current autoconf you need to
know which autoconf is being used in the subdirectory.
> Enough people configure native compilers
> now by giving all of build/host/target that I'm not very happy with the
> solution.
Well, that's a problem.
> How do we feel about migrating towards the new autoconf definitions -
> i.e. anything with --host is cross-compiled, anything with --target is
> a cross-compiler.
I've never felt particularly good about it, but the autoconf
maintainers seem determined about it. I think our choices are either
to adopt their scheme, or to use a patched autoconf.
Looking at the autoconf archives, I see that I grumbled about the
change to --program-prefix/--program-transform-name before:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2002-01/msg00053.html
Here is the rest of the thread:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2002-02/msg00060.html
Basically the autoconf maintainers say the new way is right, and
they're sorry that people have to change.
I don't know where the original discussion about this was.
Ian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-03 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-03 4:10 Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-03 4:41 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2003-09-03 14:49 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-03 15:31 ` DJ Delorie
2003-09-03 16:13 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2003-09-03 16:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-04 5:40 ` Alexandre Oliva
2003-09-07 3:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-07 4:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2003-09-07 17:33 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-03 16:12 ` Ian Lance Taylor [this message]
2003-09-04 5:37 ` Alexandre Oliva
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3bru1svf7.fsf@gossamer.airs.com \
--to=ian@airs.com \
--cc=binutils@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).