* Romain Lenglet wrote on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:29:23PM CEST: > On Monday 14 September 2009 01:54:46 Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > -if test "$ERLANG_LIB_DIR_stdlib" != "not found" \ > > > +if test "$ERLANG_LIB_DIR_stdlib" != "no" \ > > > > Please consider this particular line unchanged, this setting comes from > > AC_ERLANG_CHECK_LIB. Sorry. > > Yes, apart from that line, your patch looks good to me.
Thanks, also to Eric, for your reviews. Pushed. > If you need more help from me to test with a cross-compiler, I'm afraid I'm > not familiar enough with setting up a cross-compiler. Oh, I don't mind not testing Erlang cross compilers. If you want to do that, that's cool, but my primary motivation was about C and C++. > It would make sense to have an Erlang cross-compiler, since recent versions > of > the Erlang compiler can generate and embed native code in the bytecode files, > but for a single architecture only. I've never tried, and AFAIK nobody has > ever tried to set it up as a cross-compiler. > Is it just a matter of renaming "erlc" into "i386-gnu-erlc", for instance? Well, you have to have a compiler that runs on this system, and generates code for $host. The canonical name for this compiler would then be $host-erlc, e.g., i686-pc-linux-gnu-erlc, which is what 'configure' will search first when given --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu. But of course just renaming a compiler doesn't make it a cross-compiler. Cheers, Ralf
