[09/25] Specs cleanup: CRIS
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
Sat Jan 15 00:30:00 GMT 2011
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> It sounds like you believe sysroot is the preferable method for
> cross-builds, yet arguing against defaulting to it, only from
> the point that there's currently no suitable sysroot-point
> within --prefix. How about making up one? Or wait, seems like
> there already is one, ${exec_prefix}/${target_noncanonical}/sys-root
> (used for --with-sysroot=yes). Looks like we could just flip
> the default, defaulting to --with-sysroot=yes for cross-builds.
I think that would be reasonable for crosses to targets such as GNU/Linux
with a native directory layout.
> > (And it would be good to have an option for GCC to install all its
> > libraries in the sysroot paths rather than $target/lib etc., to reduce
> > differences further and settle on one set of paths for all libraries.)
>
> I'm not sure I understand that correctly; does "make install"
> not install target libraries in the configured sysroot if
> --with-sysroot is given? Now *there's* a wart!
Indeed, it does not install them there.
Sometimes you do want them installed there - say, if you're building a new
root filesystem image that will go on the target system, it should have
both glibc's libraries and GCC's. Sometimes you don't - say, if the
sysroot is a copy of the (fixed, not newly built) libc and related
libraries from the target and should be considered readonly. That's why
I suggested an option. (And sometimes with sysroot suffixes you want one
thing for some multilibs and the other for other multilibs, though that's
a more specialised case.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list