This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59


John Cowan wrote:
Michael Eager scripsit:

I would much prefer explicitly specifying that the build is cross or
native.  I want to specify --cross or --native (or the equivalent).
I'd be happy to discard backward compatibility.

The trouble is that you can't be sure that there aren't really three different machine architectures -- you might be building a compiler on a Linux box to run on a Solaris system to generate code for an ARM, for example. Is building a compiler on a Linux box to run on Solaris to generate code for the same Linux box a cross-compiler or not? How about building a compiler on Solaris to run on Linux for Linux? And so on.

I know the machines which I am building on and the target I am building for. No guessing. No ambiguity. I know that Solaris is not Linux. I can ALWAYS be sure that I am building on three different architectures when I explicitly specify host, build, and target.

I don't need autoconf to attempt to guess what I mean with I say
--build=i686-linux-gnu, --target=i686-solaris, --cross.

But I agree that it shouldn't matter whether a build, host, or target
switch is specified or defaulted; what should matter is the equality
or inequality of the value of those switches.

What others have said is that at times what appears to be a native build, since the switch values are the same, is actually a a cross-compile.

I think that you miss the point.  It's the guessing that is
problematic.

--
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]