Re: PATCH Finding gas

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva at dcc dot unicamp dot br>]

Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:

>   In message <org1e2w9i4.fsf@tiete.dcc.unicamp.br>you write:

>> There must be a way for gcc to remember which assembler and which
>> linker it should use, and try them before searching for alternatives.
>> Perhaps we should AC_PATH_PROG AS and LD, so that users could define
>> which assembler and which linker to use at configure-time.  New
>> configure options --with-ld=/pathname/to/ld and
>> --with-as=/pathname/to/as could be provided too.  The existence of GNU
>> as and GNU ld could then be auto-detected.

> I wouldn't object to being able to provide initial pathnames to search
> to find gas & ld at configure time.  I would object to schemes which
> try to autodetect the location of gas/gld -- that's more of an
> interface change than I'm comfortable with.

I was not suggesting that we should look for gas or gld, I'm just
suggesting that configure searches for `as' and/or `ld' in the PATH if
AS and/or LD are not defined.  But now I see this *can* break existing
behavior (for example, it might break my current installation
scripts).  Here's a reworked suggestion:

1) if AS (--with-as=...) and/or LD (--with-ld=...) were specified,
these pathnames should be hard-coded in gcc

2) otherwise, if binutils is being compiled with gcc, the pathnames
where as and ld will be installed should be hard-coded in gcc

3) otherwise, no pathname is hard-coded

In any case, if gcc cannot find the hard-coded pathname, it will
perform a search in the `program:' search dirs, as it currently does.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva
mailto:oliva@dcc.unicamp.br mailto:aoliva@acm.org
http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil