[GCC-6][RFA 1/2]: Don't ignore target_header_dir when deciding inhibit_libc

["Andre Vieira (lists)" <Andre dot SimoesDiasVieira at arm dot com>]

On 27/05/16 15:51, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>> On 07/04/16 10:30, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>> On 17/03/16 16:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/15 12:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Index: gcc/configure.ac
>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>> --- gcc/configure.ac    (revision 228530)
>>>>>> +++ gcc/configure.ac    (working copy)
>>>>>> @@ -1993,7 +1993,7 @@ elif test "x$TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT" != x; t
>>>>>>   fi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   if test x$host != x$target || test "x$TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT" != x; then
>>>>>> -  if test "x$with_headers" != x; then
>>>>>> +  if test "x$with_headers" != x && test "x$with_headers" != xyes; then
>>>>>>       target_header_dir=$with_headers
>>>>>>     elif test "x$with_sysroot" = x; then
>>>>>>      
>>>>>> target_header_dir="${test_exec_prefix}/${target_noncanonical}/sys-include"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm missing the beginning of this conversation, but this looks like a
>>>>> reasonable change (avoiding target_header_dir=yes for --with-headers).
>>>>> So, approved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering why this never made it to trunk. I am currently running
>>>> into an issue that this patch would fix.
> 
> Seems I never actually checked this in, even though it was approved.
> Thanks for the reminder, I've now checked the patch in.
> 
> Bye,
> Ulrich
> 

Is it OK to backport this fix to GCC-6? It applies cleanly, builds and
no regressions for arm-none-eabi.

Regards,
Andre