This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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] Important comment update to gcc/configure.in

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:59:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >and then, using
> >both, build HOST->TARGET, so it's ok to assume BUILD->TARGET has the
> >same features as HOST->TARGET.
> 
> I think this is really the wrong direction to go in.  What I've found is 
> that the clearest, most managable, configuration code is written by 
> clearly delineating what you're testing (build/host/target-wise), and 
> then defaulting one from another in the appropriate cases, rather than 
> deliberately confounding the tests right off the bat.
> 
> Consider a crossback (build=target!=host).  This should work cleanly and 
> simply.  It generally doesn't, and it's confounded tests like the 
> assembler tests which are the main reason.

So let's try this from the top then: if you do not want to assume
BUILD->TARGET has the same features as HOST->TARGET how do you intend
to infer the features of HOST->TARGET?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]