On 20/10/2020 00.24, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the following test still fail > with --cross-prefix="" > > if test -n "$cross_prefix"; then > ... > > That was my main reason for making this change.
That's why I wrote "still introduce the cross_compile=yes variable" ... that change is certainly required anyway. >>>>> @@ -456,6 +457,11 @@ for opt do >>>>> optarg=$(expr "x$opt" : 'x[^=]*=\(.*\)') >>>>> case "$opt" in >>>>> --cross-prefix=*) cross_prefix="$optarg" >>>>> + cross_compile="yes" >>>>> + ;; >>>>> + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" >>>>> + ;; >>>>> + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" >>>> >>>> Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead? >>> >>> I mean, still introduce the "cross_compile=yes" variable, just omit the new >>> options. >> >> That seems less intuitive for people trying to find this option. If --help >> lists --enable-cross-compile I can guess what that means but there's no >> way I could guess --cros-prefix="" unless I've been told or searched and >> stumbled upon it. So unless it's a big problem I like the explicit options >> better. Or is that a convention in other projects to use empty prefix to >> enable cross compile that I don't know about? I don't think that --cross-prefix is a "standard" option... Most other (GNU-tools related) projects use "--build" and "--host" instead... so I guess we're free to chose here. Let's see whether other people here have an opionion on this... Thomas
