x86-win32 registry lookup patch

[Mumit Khan]

kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
> 
>     My distribution are completely relocatable, and require *NO* extra
>     configuration, via env variable or registry, other than optionally
>     adding the bin directory to PATH. 
> 
> Exactly what do you do?

I use a set of (slightly modified) patches from Jim Wilson, Ian Taylor
et al that I've been calling "relative pathname lookup" patch. You
can get it from my gcc-2.95 patchset:

  ftp://ftp.xraylith.wisc.edu/pub/khan/gnu-win32/cygwin/gcc-2.95/patches/

Look for the file broken-down/gcc-2.95-relative-path.diff.

This patch is not ideal, and has a few (harmless) glitches when you
run `make install'. Also, depending on where you install it, GCC
may not look at /usr/local/include by default (that's easy to change).

Jeff has shown interest in integrating something along these lines in
the future. We'll of course need to address the various problems before
that can happen.

> I see reports that go to "the GNAT folks" and none of those 11 bothered to
> follow up.

I don't what these users have done. I wish they would report it though.
I'll make it a point to ask the next person who runs into it (it happens
not too often -- 11 reports out of about gcc-2.95 4000 downloads since
July 31).

> But you didn't comment on my proposal, which was to disable looking at the
> registry keys if --prefix was specified on the build.

Sorry, but I ran out of time. I can live with your proposal. However, 
given the current configuration scheme, can you actually tell if prefix 
was supplied by the user or passed in from the top-level configure (eg.,
what happens if user supplies --prefix=/usr/local)? 

Why don't you submit a patch and we can then discuss it?

Regards,
Mumit