This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Updates to --with-sysroot support
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>,Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:29:39 -0800
- Subject: Re: Updates to --with-sysroot support
- References: <20021104165729.GA9266@nevyn.them.org>
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:57:29AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I spent a couple days working with this and finally found a solution for
> (most of) my concerns. This patch:
> - Fixes an undocumented behavior in cppinit.c which I consider to be a bug.
> If -iprefix was used to change the compiler prefix, then first the
> standard include directories which begin with the prefix were searched
> (using the relocated prefix); then all directories were searched in order
> (using the original prefix). This means that -iprefix'd versions of
> GCC_INCLUDE_DIR (that's -iprefix's prefix followed by "include", folks)
> would be searched before GPLUSPLUS_INCLUDE_DIR. Oops.
> I changed this so that the order is preserved, and unrelocated versions
> are not searched. This means that people who were using -iprefix and
> still expecting to get GCC's <stddef.h> et al. from the normal location
> are out of luck; they'll have to specify that path as an -isystem
> explicitly. I think this change is correct but I'd like a second
> - No longer defines PREFIX_INCLUDE_DIR for a sysrooted compiler. This
> one's a little more arguable but I think it's appropriate. The sysrooted
> compiler should work like a system compiler inside of $sysroot; searching
> $prefix/include defeats that.
> I need this in my local setups but I won't be heartbroken if it's
> considered wrong for the FSF tree :)
Just for the record, I like the sound of both these changes.
Am I correct in thinking that for a normal Unix native compiler, you
could set sysroot to "/usr" and get the expected behavior? Or is it
prepended to $prefix? Or what?