From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4796 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2004 03:45:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4779 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2004 03:45:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO grayscale.canids) (67.169.96.182) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2004 03:45:16 -0000 Received: from grayscale.canids (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grayscale.canids (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5314180D; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:45:07 -0800 (PST) From: Felix Lee To: dan clark Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: cross compiler host vs build References: In-Reply-To: on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:00:36 PST from dan clark Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20040129034507.D5314180D@grayscale.canids> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00733.txt.bz2 dan clark : > The configure script in 6.0 checks if the host != target to decide if a > cross compiler should be used. no, it doesn't. is_cross_compiler is a badly named variable. it means you're building a cross development gdb, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether you're using a cross compiler to build gdb. (the variable name makes more sense when you have an integrated gdb/gcc source tree.) there are different tests elsewhere for build != host. (note, configure is a file generated by autoconf. patches should be made to configure.in.) I don't really see a reason for the variable is_cross_compiler to exist. the comment says # Define is_cross_compiler to save on calls to 'test'. but it's usually used like this if test x${is_cross_compiler} != xno ; then so it's not reducing the number of tests much. I think directly testing host = target would be clearer. --