Movatterモバイル変換

This is the mail archive of thebinutils@sources.redhat.commailing list for thebinutils project.

Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts

• From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
• To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>
• Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
• Date: 11 Jun 2003 15:03:44 -0300
• Subject: Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
• Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
• References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030611125516.7397A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>

On Jun 11, 2003, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> wrote:> On 10 Jun 2003, Alexandre Oliva wrote:>> >  Well, if I specify --host, I mean I want to use a different alias than>> > the one that is expanded by config.sub.>> >> --host has absolutely nothing to do with config.sub.  --host defaults>  Has it?  AFAIR, whatever you specify as --host gets passed through> config.sub before it gets assigned to $host (I'm prepending that "$" now> to disambiguate variable references).Err...  Yes, that's correct.  Ok, they have something to do with eachother, after all :-)>> to --build, that defaults to the output of config.guess.  If you want>> to override --build, just do it, and it will be propagated to host as>  But it will be substituted by config.sub first and the original value > won't be propagated to $host_alias, will it?With autoconf 2.5x, $host_alias will be set to whatever is passed asargument to --host.  If --host is not given, $host_alias will beblank, and $host will be the canonicalized version of the buildmachine.>  Agreed, as long as there is a way to have $host_alias and $target_alias> set up as desired. We (toplevel, not autoconf) call them $host_noncanonical and$target_noncanonical now.  autoconf no longer provides this feature.> $ locate libbfd-2.13.2.1.so> /usr/i386-linux/mips64el-linux/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so> /usr/i386-linux/mipsel-linux/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so> /usr/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so> Where does that "i386-linux" above come from, then?Seems like an artifact of your install.  I don't think we use host ininstall pathnames by default.>  Well, this is probably an option, but I don't know why such a> complication necessary.It's necessary because of changes in autoconf that make thepropagation of command-line flags from build to host and host totarget not easily available.  If we want to avoid using thecanonicalized names, which we do, using the macros written byNathanael is pretty much the only way to go.> Have you seen the dependency graphs I sent yesterday?  I believe my> proposal is the simplest solution.I believe Nathanael's macros are the implementation of the solution.BTW, we already use them.  See config/acx.m4.-- Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', seehttp://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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
    • From: Maciej W. Rozycki

• References:
  • Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
    • From: Maciej W. Rozycki