Re: config.guess and Linux/GNU

[Bruce Korb <bkorb at sco dot COM>]

Mike Stump wrote:
> Bruce Korb wrote:
> > No, wrong, do *not* delete the "elf_i?86" entry.
> 
> [...] As [a] config.guess [contributor], let me shed some light.

As the author of the patch in question, let me shed some history.
Several years ago, I was working on a Linux box that had a working
gcc, but not a working cc.  I posted some questions as to why it
was necessary to specify the machine to configure, but got no
response.  Eventually, I was sufficiently irritated to grope my
way through the config.guess script to the point where I saw it
was trying to invoke "cc", failing and giving up.  Hey, no problem:

  ln -s /usr/local/bin/gcc /usr/local/bin/cc

No luck.  Configuring "cc" turned out to be much harder.
Over time I noticed that every now and then someone else would
stub their toe the same way with a similar result.  So, I
looked deeper into config.guess and found that the first thing
it attempts to do is to parse the output from "ld --help"
and then simply ignore it if the supported emulation was i?86_elf.
It then goes on and fails with the "cc" testing.  My first patch,
approximately *TWO YEARS* ago was to emit the "i386-pc-linux-gnu"
string that you GCC folks prefer.  It was rejected because of
the big-sizean vs. little-sizean config name wars.  I submitted
a patch that emitted the "i386-pc-linux" string, but *it* was
rejected because the whole thing was going to be reworked
"Real Soon Now"(tm).  After that, every now and then, someone
hurt their toe and, if I were in the mood, I would post another
"Come on, guys, let's clean this up" message.  A month or two ago,
the config.guess maintainer finally relented and installed my
patch.  Now, you're complaining.