From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1722 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2003 16:12:36 -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 1497 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2003 16:12:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.201.54.26) by sources.redhat.com with QMTP; 3 Sep 2003 16:12:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 4036 invoked by uid 10); 3 Sep 2003 16:12:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 23809 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2003 16:12:28 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, drow@mvista.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [toplevel] Gas install name problem from autoconf 2.5x References: <20030903041031.GA29143@nevyn.them.org> <20030903144928.GA7255@nevyn.them.org> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:12:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030903144928.GA7255@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz 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