As the patch stands --cross-prefix="" works but I like having the --enable-cross-compile option because it's more clear of the intention (in logs and such). I've been struggling to come up with a concise modification to the help text for --cross-prefix that explains that empty PREFIX is allowed and why you would want to do that.
-j On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:35 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 20/10/20 07:15, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>>>> + ;; > >>>>>> + --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... > > Yeah, the way GNU tools do it is that you specify --build and --host, > and --host triggers cross compilation. I'm not sure how they'd handle > the situation where the cross prefix is empty. > > For QEMU, I agree with Thomas that --cross-prefix="" is enough. > > Paolo >
