From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27699 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2003 16:56:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27610 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2003 16:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2003 16:56:11 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 19uavS-0004NF-Qe; Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:56:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Cc: dj@redhat.com Subject: Re: [toplevel] Gas install name problem from autoconf 2.5x Message-ID: <20030903165610.GA25603@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, dj@redhat.com References: <20030903041031.GA29143@nevyn.them.org> <20030903144928.GA7255@nevyn.them.org> <200309031531.h83FV7w03522@greed.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:13:45AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > DJ Delorie writes: > > > > How do we feel about migrating towards the new autoconf definitions - > > > i.e. anything with --host is cross-compiled, anything with --target is > > > a cross-compiler. > > > > That breaks cases where you use --host to override config.guess's idea > > of the system name, i.e. to provide a canonical triplet across a range > > of build hosts that are compatible yet guess to different triples. > > The new scheme is to specify --build instead. $host defaults to > $build. Unfortunately I'm not sure that this works with older versions of autoconf. In fact I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. > > It also breaks automated builds which aren't smart enough to even > > consider the possibility that you won't provide all three. Er, like > > one of mine, which is table driven. > > Yes. Yes. This will break: - the test scripts I've been using for testing autoconf udpates. Isn't it ironic? - All of MontaVista's toolchain build scripts. I can't say that I'm thrilled. > > We should be liberal in what we accept. We once discussed > > auto-detecting which autoconf each subdirectory used, and filtering > > command lines accordingly. I suspect this is still a good idea. > > Don't expect the user to be smart about this, they won't be. > > I think that is what is required until everything is updated. > > It still leaves the top level problem--the behaviour changes at the > top level, which means that users have to change. I think that, as you said, we do not have any choice. The alternative is forking autoconf to reverse the decision, and I certainly don't want to do that. What do folks think about biting the bullet, documenting the new semantics, and trying to get every affected directory before the next releases of binutils/gcc/gdb? I believe that none of the other projects in src will be affected, they're all target apps or target libraries. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer