This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Pass FLAGS_FOR_TARGET to subdirectories (was: Re: GCC_FOR_TARGET x linker scripts)
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:26:22 -0500
- Subject: Re: Pass FLAGS_FOR_TARGET to subdirectories (was: Re: GCC_FOR_TARGET x linker scripts)
- References: <orhefb1a1i.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20021025041638.GB29075@nevyn.them.org> <or8z0n1719.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20021028203738.GA13849@nevyn.them.org> <or8z06o97r.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:15:52PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> > Note that GCC_FOR_TARGET in gcc/Makefile.in includes "-isystem
> > $(build_tooldir)/sys-include".
>
> I suppose this is no longer necessary, now that we warn or bail out when we
> can't find ${SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR}. We don't bail out when
> SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR is ${gcc_tooldir}/sys-include, but we warn about the
> problem, and `make install-gcc-tooldir' is the fix, so I think we can
> lose this -isystem now.
>
> > Here's what I came up with; what do you think?
>
> I still find this a bit too magic. Passing it in the environment
> sounds ``more right´´ to me.
I'm worried that this won't work, though. Aren't there environment
size limits to consider?
(And I find passing arguments to sub-configures in the environment
mighty magical, too, since it doesn't show up in config.status that you
did so!)
In any case, I'm holding off on this patch until we autoconf so that I
won't just have to redo it.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer