This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PATCH: --with-build-sysroot, et. al.

The logic looks OK.  But, thinking ahead, given that we currently
support this:

	./configure --prefix=...
	make prefix=...

Yet this:

	./configure --with-build-sysroot=...

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.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]