Re: An interface patch

[hjl at varesearch dot com (H.J. Lu)]

> 
>   In message <19990809204242.09D083FC1@varesearch.com>you write:
>   > I don't think it is a good idea. I need to get a C compiler
>   > first before I can use it to compile my C library. A warning
>   > is more appropriate here.
> No.  I will not accept the patch like that.  A warning is totally wrong in 
> this case.  This is a hard error and we should not continue if we can not
> determine what kind of EH scheme the target is using.
> 
> The right way to build cross compilers is with the --with-headers and
> --with-libraries option.  That provides you with a location to search for
> libc.

1. It is for Linux only.
2. It is very possible that there is no existing C library when I
build the cross compiler and the purpose of the cross compiler is
to compile the C library. It is a chicken and egg problem.

If you don't like it, just don't include this patch in gcc. I will make
it a Linux patch for gcc.

> 
>   > BTW, there is an issue with config.if in gcc/configure.in. config.if
>   > is called before target_os, target_alias and build_alias are set.
>   > Fortunately libc_interface is not used in the gcc directory. It would
>   > be better to move config.if to the place where those variables have
>   > been set.
> Or just pass them in.  It's not that difficult.
> 

Where do I get those values? As I said, those values have not been
determined yet when config.if is called in gcc/configure.in. They are
empty. My suggestion was to move config.if a few lines down in
gcc/configure.in to where those values have been set.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)