This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bfd.h installation location
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 12:35:02 +0200 (MET DST)
- Subject: Re: bfd.h installation location
- Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
On 19 May 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > This seems to work OK. Besides implementing your suggestion, I've
> > changed the non-native install location from that in the last patch
> > $(exec_prefix)/$(target_alias)/$(host_alias)/{lib,include} to
> > $(exec_prefix)/$(host_alias)/$(target_alias)/{lib,include} as that
> > seems more natural to me. $(exec_prefix)/blah has libs for blah in
> > it..
>
> Thanks, that makes sense. I find it a bit confusing because
> exec_prefix already carries the host type with it, either implicitly
> (in that you shouldn't use the same exec-prefix for different host
> types) or explicitly (in our builds,
You have $(exec_prefix)/$(host_alias) for $(tooldir) anyway, even though
$(host_alias) is somehow implied.
> --exec-prefix=${prefix}/H-${host_alias}), but your new implementation
> definitely makes more sense than the earlier version.
I wouldn't tell it makes more sense either way. For the former approach,
you get all target-related objects grouped below
$(exec_prefix)/$(target_alias). For the latter -- you get host-related
objects below $(exec_prefix)/$(host_alias). The difference is marginal.
I chose the former one as it makes cross-binutils files more tightly
grouped.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +