Hi Dan, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:02:12PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > Ossama Othman wrote: > > That should certainly be feasible unless there are some bizarre > > platforms out there. In any case, this shouldn't be a problem if > > developers use a reasonable "action-if-cross-compiling" argument for > > AC_TRY_RUN, such as a compile/link-time test > > I suppose. I prefer configure to just fail in that case, myself. > I don't want a random, and perhaps incorrect for my platform, default.
Why? I'm not suggesting a default value. I'm suggesting that another compile/link-time test be used within the "action-if-cross-compiling" AC_TRY_RUN parameter. With this approach one would fallback on what should presumably be a valid compile/link-time test. The "action" could also check if an environment variable is set, too. It could even run a script, for example. This won't always work, in which case your suggestion below would be very useful. > > BTW, did terminology change? ... > > Sorry, I got confused. (And I think that kept you from reading my > suggestion properly.) Here it is, corrected: > > 3. AC_TRY_RUN lets the user specify how to run code on the target, > e.g. with a --with-try-run=foo.sh option, where foo.sh is > a script that runs the given command remotely, e.g. via ssh. > (By default, configure would assume you can't run code on the target > when cross-compiling, just like now.) > > Does that make more sense? 's/target/host platform/g' :-) In any case, yes it does. Thanks for the clarification. Your suggestion seems reasonable to me. -Ossama -- Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine 1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
