This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A patch for configure
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: A patch for configure
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at cygnus dot com>
- Date: 18 May 2000 21:29:23 -0300
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, egcs-patches at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat Company
- References: <20000518092642.A3472@valinux.com><20000518221534.6175.qmail@daffy.airs.com><20000518153300.B26118@lucon.org><20000518225404.6273.qmail@daffy.airs.com><20000518161427.A26291@lucon.org><or3dnfieqw.fsf@saci.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20000518171701.A26623@lucon.org>
On May 18, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
> How about this one?
It still uses test ... -a ...
> My goal is people who are not familiar with gcc can build the whole
> thing with little confusion.
I doubt people who are not familiar with gcc will have glibc installed
in a non-standard location :-)
Do you know of anybody other than you that has ever encountered the
problem you describe? Just curious :-)
> People like you can always work around this annoying feature without
> much trouble.
Indeed. So can people like you. That's why I'm still a bit unsure
about whether this patch should result in a hard error by default.
I'm more inclined to a warning message followed by a `sleep 30', or
the testing or a variable such as `$enable_target_dir_sanity_checking
!= no', so that someone can skip this test with
--disable-target-dir-sanity-checking. What do you think?
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guaranį, see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company aoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and Evangelist CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Write to mailing lists, not to me