[GCC-6][RFA 1/2]: Don't ignore target_header_dir when deciding inhibit_libc

[Andre Vieira (lists)]

On 09/09/16 15:32, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> On 27/05/16 15:51, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>> On 07/04/16 10:30, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>> On 17/03/16 16:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>>> On 23/10/15 12:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Index: gcc/configure.ac
>>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>>> --- gcc/configure.ac    (revision 228530)
>>>>>>> +++ gcc/configure.ac    (working copy)
>>>>>>> @@ -1993,7 +1993,7 @@ elif test "x$TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT" != x; t
>>>>>>>   fi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   if test x$host != x$target || test "x$TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT" != x; then
>>>>>>> -  if test "x$with_headers" != x; then
>>>>>>> +  if test "x$with_headers" != x && test "x$with_headers" != xyes; then
>>>>>>>       target_header_dir=$with_headers
>>>>>>>     elif test "x$with_sysroot" = x; then
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>> target_header_dir="${test_exec_prefix}/${target_noncanonical}/sys-include"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm missing the beginning of this conversation, but this looks like a
>>>>>> reasonable change (avoiding target_header_dir=yes for --with-headers).
>>>>>> So, approved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering why this never made it to trunk. I am currently running
>>>>> into an issue that this patch would fix.
>>
>> Seems I never actually checked this in, even though it was approved.
>> Thanks for the reminder, I've now checked the patch in.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Ulrich
>>
> 
> Is it OK to backport this fix to GCC-6? It applies cleanly, builds and
> no regressions for arm-none-eabi.
> 
> Regards,
> Andre
> 
Ping.