This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: GCJ and $PREFIX/include
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David O'Brien <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>,Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:09:03 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: GCJ and $PREFIX/include
- References: <20030504135729.0a965c70.bkoz@redhat.com> <20030504205538.GA11169@dragon.nuxi.com><1052102514.1520.3129.camel@escape> <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305081231450.42300@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Hi Anthony (et al),
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>> The issue is that one may want to have gcc 3.1, 3.2.3, and 3.3-snapshot
>>> installed all at the same time. With the positioning of the Java bits,
>>> they stomp on top of each other.
>> It's not just that. Cross compilers (rightly) don't look in
>> $PREFIX/include, so you can't properly build CNI code with a cross g++.
>> We discussed this recently (see this thread:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2003-04/msg00243.html ), and were wondering
>> if it would be OK to put the headers in $PREFIX/include/c++/VERSION.
> This looks like a solution to the problem you are seeing for cross-
> compiles _and_ it solves David's problem as well, _and_ it is cheap
> in that we won't have to tweak include path. ;-)
I wonder whether there have been any news on this in the meantime?
(Benjamin didn't object to the $PREFIX/include/c++/VERSION solution, so
that indeed seems like the simplest approach.)
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/