RE: installing a cross compiler

[David Korn <dkorn at pixelpower dot com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: William A. Gatliff [mailto:bgat@saturn.billgatliff.com]
>Sent: 11 October 2001 15:02

>David:
>
>>   Actually, isn't it probably-ok-but-highly-dangerous when you're
>> recompiling your native compiler, but pretty much suicidal when
>> making a cross compiler?
>
>I think it's "potentially suicidal" (?) :^) in all cases, but not for
>the reasons you mention.  By default, gcc seems to always apply
>target-specific tweaks to header and library search paths, so it can
>properly discriminate between header and library file sets for
>different targets (see gcc's -b option, I think).  On top of that,
>with few exceptions the executables are installed with target-specific
>names.

  That's why I made a specific point of mentioning libc.a, but.....

>The default gcc search path is generally on the order of
>${PREFIX}/${TARGET}/include and ${PREFIX}/${TARGET}/lib.

  D'oh, of course, that's why it won't matter.  I'd want to double check
that there isn't any special case config code that recognizes --prefix=/usr
and tweaks the paths based on the (maybe implicit and unintended) assumption
that we're building a native rather than cross compiler, but assuming the
config code is bug free (...!) then it should be absolutely fine for a 
cross compiler, and only dangerous for a native compiler.

>So, it looks like the configure process already works the way you say
>it should, except that it *will* take /usr as a prefix, but you still
>have to add more options to do an oops-darn-where-is-my-install-cd
>setup.  Best of both worlds, methinks.

  Agreed, in fact that seems clever enough it may even have been deliberate!

>But hey, keep in mind that IANAAOT: I am not an authority on this.

  Well, me neither.  In fact, I'm not sure if anyone could really call 
themselves that; Gcc is so big and so messy and legacy ridden that even the
developers on the gcc list who specialize in a particular area find it
surprises them every now and again!

>A newbie user doesn't know enough to know why working as root is
>dangerous, so they should take my advice.  A power user will ignore my
>advice anyway.  Either way, I'm covered.

  A newbie doesn't know enough to know why working as root is dangerous, so
they'll probably do it and sooner or later trash something and have to
reinstall their system, and be more cautious in future.  Then they won't be
a newbie any more!  How can you be so callous as to deny them this valuable
learning experience !?

>FWIW, I rarely work as root on my own machines, usually only to
>flood-ping my co-lo server to see if it's up, and to run up2date.

  Heh, FWIW, I always work as root or admin because I like living
dangerously.  Well, because I grew up on single user home PCs like the
CBM64 and Amiga series and so I've always been used to the notion that
there's nothing to protect you from yourself except taking lots of care.

  Anyway, who cares if our system disks get wiped, I mean, we all take
backups every day, don't we?  <g,d+r>


      DaveK
-- 
Burn your ID card!  http://www.optional-identity.org.uk/
Help support the campaign, copy this into your .sig!


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com