Hi! Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Sun 20 Mar 2011 14:50, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> However, I don’t think defining ‘%target-type’ would make sense >> since: >> >> 1. Of the GNU triplet, only the $target_arch matters for bytecode; >> >> 2. You can really choose at run-time what target you want to build >> for, by just setting the endianness fluid. What I meant to say here, is that via a couple of knobs akin to ‘current-target-endianness’, you could actually cross-build for any target. This is different from Binutils/GCC: a cross-GCC can only cross-build for the target that was specified when that cross-GCC was built. Conversely, a single Guile instance could compile code for any target. Thus ‘%target-type’ would be inappropriate IMO because the target could be chosen at run-time and it could be anything. Does that make sense? Besides, the UI could be made familiar. For instance ‘guile-tools compile --target=TRIPLET’ would be fine with me. > Can I convince you otherwise? Right now it's endianness, but I would > like to hack an ARM native compiler sometime soonish, Ooh, cool! :-) >> Now, if we want to produce something comparable to cross-GCC & >> cross-Binutils[*], we could install, say, arm-linux-gnueabi-guile-tools > > Yes, that sounds good, though I would be happier if we did this simply > with --program-prefix and --target. The prefix is added automatically for cross-Binutils and cross-GCC, hence this example. Thanks, Ludo’.