RE: Configuring GCC build: doc patch

[Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs at dmu dot ac dot uk>]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng [mailto:hgs@dmu.ac.uk]
        [....]
> > My case was Solaris 9 sparc
>
>  Ah yes, that was the one: came up only a couple of weeks ago.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-07/msg00025.html
>
> > I don't know why it should fail in such a case.
>
>  Some kind of discrepancy between Solaris shell semantics and other
> systems, at a guess, but I don't know.

If somebody knows enough about this maybe we could raise a specific
bug report with Sun.

> > I can't really speak about other systems.
>
>  As far as I know, it's thoroughly reliable on most of the other mainstream
> gcc platforms; Solaris is the only context I've heard anyone have problems
> with it, although there's one post in the thread I referenced above where
> someone thought they might once have seen the same on freebsd5.2.  But for

Thank you, I'll have a poke around a bit further.

> the rest, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to invoke configure with
> either a relative or absolute path.
>
>  So the doc patch you suggested belongs more properly in the
> target-specific build/install instructions at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html, and in fact, if you check at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#_002a_002d_002a_002dsolaris2_002a,
> you will see that someone's already documented this problem:

Thank you. I managed to miss that.

        [...]
> although the wording there makes it sound like it's only a problem for
> configuring some of the subdirs; maybe the best approach would be just to
> modify the test above to make it clear that the same problem can manifest as
> other problems, including at "make install" time.

I'll let you know what happens.
>    cheers,
>      DaveK
        Thank you,
        Hugh
>