From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15781 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2003 19:25:40 -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 15749 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2003 19:25:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2003 19:25:39 -0000 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (aoliva.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.1.10]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h5DJPVK03300; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:25:32 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [127.0.0.1]) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5DJPVMb018831; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:25:31 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h5DJPUTp018827; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:25:30 -0300 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Bernd Jendrissek , Nathanael Nerode , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts References: From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: 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: 2003-06/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 On Jun 13, 2003, "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote: > OK, the first is a native one, so it goes to $exec_prefix, say: > /usr/lib. The second one is a cross one, so it goes to > $exec_prefix/$target_alias, say: /usr/mipsel-linux/lib. Finally, the last > one is a cross one, too, so it goes to $exec_prefix/$target_alias, say: > /usr/mipsel-linux/lib -- oops! -- the second one just got overwritten... Two crosses to the same target, and you don't want one to overwrite the other? Well, then... I guess you want to add build timestamps somewhere in the pathname or something. More likely, I just misunderstand the scenario you have in mind :-) >> Anyway, after re-reading the thread, I remember why we chose to do it >> the way we did it. It does make sense, even thought I still find it >> not ideal. > I am looking forward to seeing any proposals for improvements. My proposal back then was $exec_prefix/x-$target_alias for host-x-target libraries. libraries for the target (i.e., not libraries for host applications to manipulate target binaries, but rather libraries containing code that will run on the target) would still be in $exec_prefix/$target_alias, where they're currently installed, but there's no reason why we couldn't move them to say $prefix/$target_alias (since they depend on target, and are totally independent of host), and use $exec_prefix/$target_alias for host-x-target binaries. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer