This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
%% Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> writes:
rl> I mentioned earlier that config.guess seems to originate from rl> autoconf.
That's not really true. Many packages, including autoconf, provide config.guess, but the master copy is kept in the "config" project in Savannah (https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config/), along with config.sub, etc.
rl> (I'm curious why patch, sed, or grep would really care about any rl> of this...)
Its hard to know, but a number of autoconf macros rely on the values generated by config.guess.
Oddly, config.guess doesn't contain the string 'uclibc' or 'uclinux'. Wonder what it outputs when running on a uclibc system...
Here's some discussion from when Bernardo was picking the system name: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-09/msg01136.html which notes that *-uclinux-uclibc is a good tuple which is significantly different from *-linux-uclibc in that it uses flat ELF files rather than normal ones.
Does anyone know if any program needs to behave differently for *-linux-uclibc as opposed to *-linux-gnu (besides gcc)? I imagine it might change a couple defaults in the cross-compile case for some autoconf tests, at least... - Dan
------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |