From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29359 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2003 20:54:11 -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 29148 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2003 20:54:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2003 20:54:10 -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 h5DKquK13706; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:53:02 -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 h5DKqRMb019648; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:52:27 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h5DKptR1019644; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:51:55 -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 20:54:00 -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/msg00268.txt.bz2 On Jun 13, 2003, "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote: > On 13 Jun 2003, Alexandre Oliva 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 > ... from different hosts; only the build is the same. If it's for different hosts, then you also clobbered all binaries that you'd installed in the same exec_prefix. Which is why in this case you'd be better off using per-host exec_prefixes. That's exactly the purpose behind the distinction between prefix and exec_prefix. Files in prefix are host-independent, whereas those in exec_prefix are host-specific. > It looks sane to me, but I think both host-x-target (or really > build-x-target; what about build-x-host-x-target? ;-) ) build is irrelevant at install time. If some package installs binaries for the build machine, the package is broken. > libraries and such binaries should both be under > $exec_prefix/x-$target_alias for consistency then. Nope. $exec_prefix/x-$target_alias would hold libraries containing code that runs on the host (so exec_prefix, not host-independent prefix), used to manipulate binaries in the target's format (e.g. host-x-target libbfd). Compare this with binaries and libraries in the target's format, that we currently install in $exec_prefix/$target_alias, even though they aren't host-specific in any way, and therefore they could legitimately be installed in $prefix/$target_alias. The fact that they were build on a certain host should be irrelevant. > And host libraries (I suppose you mean that -- few libraries, such > as bfd, actually recognize the existence of a target; I understand the > naming can be confusing) may go to $prefix/$host_alias Host libraries *have* to be in $exec_prefix, and $host_alias is therefore redundant. > (where $prefix may sometimes effectively be equal to $exec_prefix) If you use the same exec_prefix for different hosts, you're already toast. Get used to --exec-prefix=${prefix}/H-${host_alias} before it's too late :-) -- 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