PATCH Finding gas

Jeffrey A Law
Thu Sep 10 10:12:00 GMT 1998

  In message < >you write:
  > > I wouldn't object to being able to provide initial pathnames to search
  > > to find gas & ld at configure time.  I would object to schemes which
  > > try to autodetect the location of gas/gld -- that's more of an
  > > interface change than I'm comfortable with.
  > I was not suggesting that we should look for gas or gld, I'm just
  > suggesting that configure searches for `as' and/or `ld' in the PATH if
  > AS and/or LD are not defined.  But now I see this *can* break existing
  > behavior (for example, it might break my current installation
  > scripts).  Here's a reworked suggestion:
  > 1) if AS (--with-as=...) and/or LD (--with-ld=...) were specified,
  > these pathnames should be hard-coded in gcc
And I've said this would be OK.

  > 2) otherwise, if binutils is being compiled with gcc, the pathnames
  > where as and ld will be installed should be hard-coded in gcc
No need.  If they are being compiled together they will be installed
in the same prefix and the binutils will be found automatically.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list