This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: --with-build-sysroot, et. al.
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:18:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: PATCH: --with-build-sysroot, et. al.
- References: <200507241939.j6OJdpaR004380@sethra.codesourcery.com>
The logic looks OK. But, thinking ahead, given that we currently
It seems clumsy. I wonder if SYSROOT_FOR_TARGET is a bettern choice,
or even just "sysroot" if this is going to become popular enough.
And if this sets the sysroot where gcc assumes things are installed,
then I think calling it the *build* sysroot is misleading (it's *not*
in the same category as --build= - i.e. it's not the --sysroot option
for $BUILD_CC). Should it be --with-target-sysroot? Or even just
--sysroot (like --prefix or --exec-prefix)?
Another thought is... can we specify sysroot as a relative directory
off prefix? I mean, --with-sysroot='$(prefix)/...', so that changing
prefix also changes sysroot? I expect the logic for that would be
more complex though.
Hmm... if the *default* sysroot were $(prefix)/sysroot, we could skip
a lot of that. *Not* specifying anything would make everything work
with the old instructions, assuming we generate the right --sysroot
option for gcc.
I'm OK with you checking it in and changing the names later, though,
if this is blocking anyone.