This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.3 PATCH: Add --with-sysroot support
Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:41:32PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> writes:
| > | On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:44:02PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > "H. J. Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| > | >
| > | > | Since I need a stable compile with --with-sysroot support, I backported
| > | > | it to gcc 3.3.
| > | >
| > | > I understand you want sysroot support, but I don't see why we want or
| > | > need that for 3.3.x. Would you mind elaborating?
| > | > (That is not an argumentative question).
| > | > I would need input from one of our build system maintainers.
| > |
| > | Actually, I think this would be a good idea. Get people used to the
| > | new way of building cross-compilers to hosted systems, sooner rather
| > | than later - it's much simpler. I was a bit disappointed by the
| > | narrow distance we missed 3.3 by the first time.
| > |
| > | I haven't looked at HJ's actual patch. I have a complete sysroot
| > | backport in my local 3.3 tree, though, so I can compare against that if
| > | necessary.
| > Thanks a lot for the feedback. HJ described his patch as a backport
| > from 3.4. Since you have implemented a equivalent functionality in
| > your local tree and understand the issue better than I, I would
| > appreciate if you could have a look at HJ's patch and comment further.
| Sorry about the wait.
No need to sorry!
| HJ, I've attached the two patches from my local tree that appear to be
| missing. Otherwise it looks fine to me.
so, do I correctly understand that you recommend to apply HJ's patch
in conjunction of the ones you provide?