From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72479 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2019 21:06:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 72463 invoked by uid 89); 28 Nov 2019 21:06:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1693, plausible X-HELO: esa4.mentor.iphmx.com Received: from esa4.mentor.iphmx.com (HELO esa4.mentor.iphmx.com) (68.232.137.252) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:06:19 +0000 IronPort-SDR: RWQAkNGoJ7ULUq2KO5HFHx7zATbIWtDTZrjWn53KEkc2rcsTOJfSpgoXq26sLAyO8lhuf7/aw0 zn+BRw73z+OW8URIIfG4GSmMt0CfeUhvDkx7PxwwMUEABKTPWVoSVFXa38es7L4VWMoPlOoXt9 hSqgOK3sNI5fJz/6iOuNlP396niWAzvuEINwyPZbU/qQVic1M9CBGRwSYZs4hH5Fl19z2YO08i wDCc7MmZZPP+SfHGV3Biy3qjHboIpO/FCMPAwyFxYeV42W/mjVwSFtGn+i69pGdBUBFw0oV7w4 lQY= Received: from orw-gwy-01-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.165]) by esa4.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2019 13:06:12 -0800 IronPort-SDR: c+B+j6+1qGgV+x7HNors5nU9jgWrFn/WGGpu4p4TYZ68F6cvajXQYPAGBlOlNKQj13LddD/z/a ZbNDZKl4Wg2h4vt1TPVxitZCCxK0cHd+tZTxzPfkhSrv9j//r53Aor3n4LdGO21KpEXY9EaSE2 KnLTniLY4S/EF8t+N4mqfPoTfsGFhSyZS28OdNmnt4IRwGkKQbLSCsprEBQrFVInkWFF0aEc72 cGluDwhJUa+XwxSx1PXmQSz0DeYDshMCVUA/9eXacX1Y2WW+wi5dPKuAM+fUE0lQqBO77h6GTv MXE= Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:06:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add `--with-install-sysroot=' configuration option In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Return-Path: joseph@codesourcery.com X-SW-Source: 2019/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > > Rather, it's a suffix (as in SYSROOT_SUFFIX_SPEC, no command-line option > > to print it), > > Do you mean that there's no option to print SYSROOT_SUFFIX_SPEC on its > own or that no option prints it as a path component? If the latter, then > I think it's an awful shortcoming, because there's no reasonable way for > a given GCC compilation to determine the layout expected. There is no option to print the results of expanding SYSROOT_SUFFIX_SPEC on its own. You can use -print-sysroot to print the full sysroot used, including the suffix. > Is it that with $toolexeclibdir we have say: > > /usr/mips64el-st-linux-gnu/ > +-> lib/ > | +-> 2e/ > | \-> 2f/ > +-> lib32/ > | +-> 2e/ > | \-> 2f/ > \-> lib64/ > +-> 2e/ > \-> 2f/ Yes. > whereas `--sysroot=/path/to/sysroot' expects: > > /path/to/sysroot/ > +-> 2e/ > | +-> lib/ > | +-> lib32/ > | \-> lib64/ > \-> 2f/ > +-> lib/ > +-> lib32/ > \-> lib64/ Yes. This latter structure is currently one that GCC can *use* but never *installs* anything into. > If my understanding as expressed above is correct, then I think the way > to move forward with this change will be to rename the option to > `--with-toolexeclibdir=' or suchlike (and adjust documentation > accordingly) so that it avoids the ambiguity of "sysroot" and is in line > with the usual `--bindir=', `--libdir=', etc. or less usual > `--with-slibdir=' options where people can adjust the various installation > directories according to their requirements or preferences. Yes, that seems a plausible approach. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com