On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > >> First, my patches conserve the semantics of configure if you do not >> explicitly set the --target flag. If you want the current behavior, then >> you can omit --target and the configure script will infer the value of >> target from the host. >> >> My patches make --target useful, as the current semantics of --target >> is that of nop. The target backed should default to the one specified >> by the user at configure time. >> >> Also, without my patches I do not see how clang configured with >> ../configure --enable-targets=arm --target=arm >> would work on an x86 host machine if you explicitly disable the x86 >> backend. > > > Some thinking out loud to open up the discussion: > > I understand this, but I'm just not sure _why_ we want to do such a thing. > Smaller shipping binaries I suppose? Is it worth the headache of having > clang understand the cross target but not the native target? I'm trying > to avoid the "ship a host-x-target for every target you really want to > support" > headache that comes out of using --target. > > This would solve the need for setting a default target in the "canadian cross" > style build (or constructing a small shell script that does the same), but > mostly this feels like a "where do we draw the line" question and my only > answer is "blue". > > Also, James's points should be answered as well. :)
*shrug* After some discussion I can't come up with a reason why not that isn't something we already have a problem with :) So if you send me another diff I'll check it in. -eric
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
