From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B933842430; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:34:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 35B933842430 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A961B1E794; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:34:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: V2 [PATCH] PKG_CHECK_MODULES: Check if $pkg_cv_[]$1[]_LIBS works To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Andreas Schwab , "H.J. Lu via Binutils" , Tom Tromey , GCC Patches , GDB , Aaron Merey References: <20200502022903.175852-1-amerey@redhat.com> <87eep4hp3s.fsf@tromey.com> <996bd0f9-cec5-119c-19ea-b127cf1bb95d@simark.ca> <87r1svyche.fsf@igel.home> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:34:24 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:34:32 -0000 On 2020-07-28 10:11 a.m., H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:01 AM Simon Marchi wrote: >> >> On 2020-07-28 9:56 a.m., H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:51 AM Andreas Schwab wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jul 28 2020, H.J. Lu via Binutils wrote: >>>> >>>>> On x86, the native GCC can support -m32 and -m64. "gcc -m32" or "gcc -m64" >>>>> are not cross compiling. >>>> >>>> You cannot link -m64 and -m32 together. >>>> >>>>> I didn't set PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR and I don't want to set it. >>>> >>>> Then use the correct pkg-config for your target. If you think >>>> pkg-config is broken, then fix _that_. >>>> >>> >>> I did: >>> >>> RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board 'unix{-m32}'" CC="gcc -m32 -fno-lto >>> -fcf-protection" >>> CXX="g++ -fno-lto -m32 -fcf-protection" /exp >>> ort/gnu/import/git/gitlab/x86-binutils/configure \ >>> --enable-targets=x86_64-linux \ >>> i686-linux \ >>> --enable-plugins --disable-gdb --disable-gdbserver --disable-libdecnumbe >>> r --disable-readline --disable-sim --with-sysroot=/ --with-system-zlib \ >>> --prefix=/usr/local \ >>> --with-local-prefix=/usr/local >>> configure: WARNING: you should use --build, --host, --target >>> checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu >>> checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu >>> checking target system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu >> >> So... is your build system a 32-bit one? Why does the above say i686-pc-linux-gnu >> and not x86_64-something? >> > > My system supports both -m32 and -m64. Depending on CC, configure > selects i686 or x86-64 target. Can you clarify how this magic works, is this standard autoconf? Because I am trying this on Fedora, so pretty much the same setup as you, and I don't see this behavior: $ /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/configure CC="gcc -m32" CXX="g++ -m32" checking build system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu checking host system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu checking target system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu ... And even if it worked, why would it set "build" to i686, it doesn't make sense. The gcc you compile with, and its environment, is still x86_64, not i686. So *if* it works, it would be a shortcut for setting --host=i686-something, maybe. So regardless of how that above works, that doesn't remove the need to configure pkg-config correctly for the host system. If you don't want to learn about with pkg-config and deal with it, then please say "I think we should not use pkg-config", and ideally give supporting points. Please don't unilaterally push patches just to paper over your own problems. You just make it so that somebody will need to untangle more mess later. Simon