Thank you for the clarification.  I agree that a fix should be 
applied to configure.in. Since the tar file includes both 
configure and configure.in the configure script must also be patched in 
attempts to use the 6.0 distribution as provided.

The use of is_cross_compiler does seem to be overloaded.  In particular, 
it is subsequently used for determining the skipdirs, determining if 
newlib should be built, and if it is OK to have the 'with_headers' value 
defined, the later of which is most problematic.  If the 'build' != 'host' 
then it is likely that 'with_headers' will be defined.  But it may very 
well be that 'host' == 'target' in this case.  The fix I proposed is a bit 
heavy handed, perhaps the more appropriate way of dealing with this 
issue is the refine the test which results in the error:
"*** --with-headers is only supported when cross compiling"

The resulting revised patch is attached for clarity.
dan

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Felix Lee wrote:

> dan clark <dlc@ncube.com>:
> > 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.
> --
> 
>