"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Jun 16, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a case where the new behavior is clearly wrong. That is
when --build and --host are both given and they are exactly the
same. I have appended a patch to fix that
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And you are rejecting the fact that you don't need to specify
--build, you just need --host. This is a huge step backwards!
Alexandre We may have an `I-know-what-I'm-doing' option, such as
Alexandre --Host, for example.
In fact we
"Earnie" == Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Earnie I have yet to do a cross-compile but hope to use Akim's and
Earnie Mo's patches to do so when I GARTI.
Hm, Get A Ride To It? No, doesn't sound right. The dictionaries of
dict(1) don't seem to know this one.
Akim
On 28 Jun 2000, Akim Demaille wrote:
OK, I see. I was still under the impression that Cygnus was wrapping
the trees, I had not understood users were likely to assemble trees.
When a user downloads gcc, it already has a configure script
that was generated and checked into the CVS. Besides,
"Mo" == Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mo On 28 Jun 2000, Akim Demaille wrote:
OK, I see. I was still under the impression that Cygnus was
wrapping the trees, I had not understood users were likely to
assemble trees.
Mo When a user downloads gcc, it already has a configure script that
On Jun 28, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I'm ``convinced'' :)
Alexandre Yahh
Hey, wait that I send the message before answering! :)
:-D :-D
Thank you.
But I approve your patch.
Thanks. I won't install it as-is. I'll merge Mo's patch too (since
it would conflict
On Jun 28, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I understand Cygnus does not package forest
Cygnus does. It is GNU that doesn't. So this change is more
important for GNU developers in general than for Cygnus' customers.
I'm sorry I didn't make this clear from the beginning. I
On Jun 28, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre Some Cygnite
Cygnite :) How cute :) Is the `i' as in `night' or `nit'? Hm, I
guess it is more like `knight' :)
I've always read it as `night', but I'd never made
On Jun 28, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but I just do not see the logic in that argument. If some
tool has not been updated for 5 years, what are the chances
someone if going to switch to the new autoconf and expect everything
to work exactly the same way?
It's the
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre I too fear we'll never be able to drop the old behavior,
Alexandre since there are packages out there that haven't had update
Alexandre releases for 5 years or more. We shouldn't expect such
Alexandre packages to disappear, so,
It's the converse: tools that configure and build other tools, such as
RPM, may prefer a consistent interface to build pretty much
everything, instead of having to customize its behavior for old
packages. But the importance of the backward-compatible change
for GNU projects doesn't have
On Jun 28, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, there is nothing to update! We have already addressed the
issue of toplevel configure passing both --build and --host
down to sub-configures.
Indeed. But there's a lot of documentation to be updated, so that
people will use --build
On 28 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 28, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, there is nothing to update! We have already addressed the
issue of toplevel configure passing both --build and --host
down to sub-configures.
Indeed. But there's a lot of documentation to
Is that the main argument for reverting back to the old
--host semantics?
Nope. There are several arguments. Please read all this thread
carefully.
I have been following this thread :)
The problem of passing options down to sub configures
is solved by my patch, right?
The only other
On Jun 28, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem of passing options down to sub configures
is solved by my patch, right?
Yep.
The only other issue is the change that required
the user to pass --build instead of --host
when only one is given on the command line.
When --host
When --host is given, we should not just assume we've got a cross
compiler. Instead, we test the compiler we've got, and decide whether
it's a cross compiler or not.
...
The only concessions for backward compatibility we're making is that
--host alone will cause a cross-compilation
On 28 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 28, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't we just switch the value of $build over to the output of
config.guess for the build system when we try to detect a cross
compiler and the resulting executable can not be run?
Compare
On Jun 28, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with just running config.guess without knowing
anything about the cross compiler?
People would have set CC=/path/to/cross-compiler, and config.guess
would use it unless CC_FOR_BUILD or HOST_CC are set. There's room for
a lot
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre When --host is given, we should not just assume we've got a
Alexandre cross compiler. Instead, we test the compiler we've got,
Alexandre and decide whether it's a cross compiler or not.
This one, I don't get it clear. Why
--- Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Earnie" == Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Earnie I have yet to do a cross-compile but hope to use Akim's and
Earnie Mo's patches to do so when I GARTI.
Hm, Get A Ride To It? No, doesn't sound right. The dictionaries of
dict(1) don't
On Jun 28, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would someone set host != build
and not expect cross-compiling?
I'm taking about the case in which build is not specified. In this
case, the user may have meant the old behavior, in which --host would
set the default for build and
On Jun 28, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre It would be trivial to accomplish that: just remove the
Alexandre line that sets build_alias=$host_alias from my proposed
Alexandre patch.
Yes!
But note that
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes!
Alexandre But note that cross_compiling=maybe is still necessary.
Gross :)
You know, frankly, I'm just trusting you, I'm dead lost.
Never before the CVS Autoconf cross_compiling revamping, had I
understood the mechanism of
-Original Message-
From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 6:19 PM
To: Alexandre Oliva
Cc: Mo DeJong; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: --host = cross breaks GCC builds
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] write
On Jun 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I do not fully understand is why the patch saying that if --build and
--host are passed and equal we are not cross compiling and modifying the top
cygnus configure script to be backward compatible and to pass both --build
and
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I too fear we'll never be able to drop the old behavior, since there are
packages out there that haven't had update releases for 5 years or more.
We shouldn't expect such packages to disappear, so, it would not be
unreasonable to retain some behavior
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Today, my favorite solution is still an option
--with-old-host-semantics or whatever the name.
Alexandre Assuming the user would know when to use this flag. As
Alexandre I've written before, any solution that requires new flags
On Jun 27, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, definitely. What I am saying is that Cygnus configure could
fairly well be the air-bag which will make the interface between old
and new semantics.
No, because each package comes with its own top-level `configure', so
the user
| On Jun 19, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I'm sorry, but I disagree. The only sane and simple definition of
| cross-compilation is when --host is specified.
|
| It might be simple, but I'm not sure it's sane. If host and build are
| identical, it doesn't make sense to
On Jun 26, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And btw, do you mean host_alias != build_alias, or really build !=
host?
_alias, i.e., what the user specifies in the command line. So he's in
full control.
| IMO, we should take smaller steps in the right direction. Since we're
|
On Jun 26, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, I don't think anyone would really expect
--build=FOO --host=FOO to do a cross compile.
Agreed
I thought there was already a switch for cygnus behavior.
--cygnus assume program is part of Cygnus-style tree
I've
On Jun 26, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--cygnus assume program is part of Cygnus-style tree
I've never seen this option, and it doesn't seem to be accepted by any
On Jun 26, 2000, Mo DeJong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I don't buy that: nobody will never change anything in their scripts,
If they won't change their scripts, then it's their fault. By warning
in advance, we're exempting ourselves from being blamed
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre GCC and Sourceware src (== Cygnus)'s top-level configure
Alexandre always passes --build, --host and --target down to
Alexandre sub-directories. Therefore, we must not assume that, just
Alexandre because --host is given, we're
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. The only sane and simple definition of
cross-compilation is when --host is specified.
so what do you do if config.guess is wrong and you want to
specify the --host string exactly, but you don't want a
cross-compile?
--
Felix Lee wrote:
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. The only sane and simple definition of
cross-compilation is when --host is specified.
so what do you do if config.guess is wrong and you want to
specify the --host string exactly, but you don't want a
On Jun 19, 2000, Felix Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. The only sane and simple definition of
cross-compilation is when --host is specified.
so what do you do if config.guess is wrong and you want to
specify the --host string
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If your problem is with the result of config.guess, what you want to
specify is --build, not --host, because config.guess can only guess
that the build platform is.
ok, that's fine.
--
On 16 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
GCC and Sourceware src (== Cygnus)'s top-level configure always passes
--build, --host and --target down to sub-directories. Therefore, we
must not assume that, just because --host is given, we're cross
compiling.
Comparing build with host and
39 matches
Mail list logo
