Re: [09/25] Specs cleanup: CRIS

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

> It sounds like you believe sysroot is the preferable method for
> cross-builds, yet arguing against defaulting to it, only from
> the point that there's currently no suitable sysroot-point
> within --prefix.  How about making up one?  Or wait, seems like
> there already is one, ${exec_prefix}/${target_noncanonical}/sys-root
> (used for --with-sysroot=yes).  Looks like we could just flip
> the default, defaulting to --with-sysroot=yes for cross-builds.

I think that would be reasonable for crosses to targets such as GNU/Linux 
with a native directory layout.

> > (And it would be good to have an option for GCC to install all its 
> > libraries in the sysroot paths rather than $target/lib etc., to reduce 
> > differences further and settle on one set of paths for all libraries.)
> 
> I'm not sure I understand that correctly; does "make install"
> not install target libraries in the configured sysroot if
> --with-sysroot is given?  Now *there's* a wart!

Indeed, it does not install them there.

Sometimes you do want them installed there - say, if you're building a new 
root filesystem image that will go on the target system, it should have 
both glibc's libraries and GCC's.  Sometimes you don't - say, if the 
sysroot is a copy of the (fixed, not newly built) libc and related 
libraries from the target and should be considered readonly.  That's why 
I suggested an option.  (And sometimes with sysroot suffixes you want one 
thing for some multilibs and the other for other multilibs, though that's 
a more specialised case.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com