Re: RFC: Permit relative path for --with-gxx-include-dir

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:24:13PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> I guess that would work -- but why make users do that?  That seems even
>> more arcane, and potentially susceptible to vagaries of exactly how the
>> variable is used in the Makefiles, etc.  Putting the quoting into the
>> libstdc++ configure script seems to allow the user to specify a more
>> obvious form, and allows the libstdc++ scripts to process the option as
>> necessary.
> 
> Personally, I don't find this to be an obvious interpretation of
> relative paths at all.  If you want it relative to prefix, then say
> so.  Or change an absolute path inside $prefix to start with '${prefix}'.

I'm not sure what else a relative path would be relative to, other than
the prefix?  The current working directory doesn't seem an obvious
choice to me, but that's the only other thing I can imagine.  What
interpretation would you make of a relative path?

In any case, it seems better to me to define and document a way of doing
what we want to do (which my patch does), rather than rely on the
(AFAICT) undocumented approach of passing:

  --w-g-i-d='${prefix}'/some/where

Does anyone else have thoughts?

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713