This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Two build != host fixes
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:36:58 +1030
- Subject: Re: Two build != host fixes
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131204011354 dot GG3306 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <xniov5mdhd dot fsf at greed dot delorie dot com>
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:44:46PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> writes:
> > Bootstrapped etc. powerpc64-linux. OK mainline and 4.8 branch?
> >
> > * configure.ac (BUILD_CXXFLAGS) Don't use ALL_CXXFLAGS for
> > build != host.
> > <recursive call for build != host>: Clear GMPINC. Don't bother
> > saving CFLAGS.
> > * configure: Regenerate.
>
> Ok for mainline, up to the 4.8 release manager if it's OK there but it
> looks OK to me.
>
> Do we need to add a CXXFLAGS= to that configure too?
We basically need whatever is used to make decisions for auto-host.h
(auto-build.h) contents. I hadn't found CXXFLAGS necessary, but that
might just be similarity of build to host in my case or simply lack of
noticing a configury error.. I guess adding CXXFLAGS might be a good
idea for future-proofing.
Hmm, this is opening up a whole can of worms. auto-host.h definitely
contains info about assembler capabilities, so to get a "good"
auto-build.h we really ought to set AS=$AS_FOR_BUILD too. Similar
reasoning applies to LD= for all the HAVE_LD_* macros. Whether a
"good" auto-build.h makes any difference over a "bad" one is another
question.
Maybe we should use most of BUILD_EXPORTS in the top level
Makefile.in? What can go wrong with that? :)
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM