Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
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: Bernd Jendrissek <berndfoobar at users dot sourceforge dot net>, 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: 13 Jun 2003 11:02:12 -0300
- Subject: Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030613115951.13762A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
On Jun 13, 2003, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> wrote:> OK, then what about the following example: on an i386-linux system I have> three shared binaries of libbfd, one is for i386-linux host and i386-linux> target, another one is for i386-linux host and mipsel-linux target and the> last one is for mipsel-linux host and mipsel-linux target.$(exec_prefix)/$(target_alias) should place them in differentdirectories.> Anyway see 'http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-05/msg00184.html'> and its follow ups for the origin of the choice -- as you took part in the> discussion, I'm actually surprised you are not aware of the current setup./me claims faulty memory, in self defense :-)/me notes that the original thread subject was bfd.h, and$(includedir) is part of $(prefix), not $(exec_prefix) like $(libdir).Anyway, after re-reading the thread, I remember why we chose to do itthe way we did it. It does make sense, even thought I still find itnot ideal.-- 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
[8]ページ先頭