This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++] include directory configury
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: [C++] include directory configury
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:48:26 -0800 (PST)
- cc: samuel at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Hey mark. We do this for the following setup:
all with the same prefix. Some of the libstdc++-v3's headers are
configure-generated, and have to do with configuration particulars
(atomicity, config.h, etc: you'll find the full list as build_headers in
src/Makefile.am). Not installing the target-dependent ones in a
target-dependent place means they all get smashed by the last-installed.
This is no bueno.
Hopefully this explains the problem of why we mess with this at all.
> If we put the main include files in /foo/bar/include
> why not just put (for example) the i686-pc-linux-gnu stuff
> in /foo/bar/include/i686-pc-linux-gnu?
...that's another way to do it.
> Anyhow, the point is that the relocatable GCC thing is way cool, and
> now we're back in that state, ugliness aside.
I agree: I'm not trying to make trouble, just trying to get a clean patch
for everybody's favorite behavior. Having one set of shared c++ includes
for multiply-targeted c++ compilers is also quite cool.......
> I think if there's something better we can do that's cool, but I guess
> I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting. Do you have a patch in
I move to have the target-includes in a target-specified directory of the
main libstdc++-v3 include directory, as you suggested above. Jason has
also agreed to this in the past, and I believe this will work out ok.
The compiler and library bits have to be changed in a similar manner.