From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: SETPGRP and autoconf Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:17:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B60505D.5080304@cygnus.com> References: <20010725162420.A13860@nevyn.them.org> <200107261040.f6QAe2T05377@delius.kettenis.local> <20010726084450.A2941@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00384.html >> What can we do about this? Besides my usual hack: I have a huge list of >> autoconf cache variables in my build environment, preset. >> >> Dunno. I don't think there are too many people cross-compiling GDB. >> If we want to fix this, we could use an alternative check for >> AC_FUNC_SETPGRP when cross-compiling based on the setpgrp prototype. >> I don't think it would hurts not defining SETPGRP_VOID if no >> prototypes are available, since passing the extra arguments should be >> harmless. > > > Even if we don't require ISO C headers when building, requiring them > while cross-compiling doesn't seem too unreasonable. I'll try to work > up a patch for this. That is kind of what I was thinking. I can see the following cases: native - already covered, test works cross debugger - N/A procfs et.al. do not need the results of the test canadian cross - try headers; test is against the build systems build-X-host cross compiler and not the build systems build-X-build native compiler. I can't see anyone trying to canadian-cross GDB to anything but a fairly modern operating system, consequently, the headers test should work. Could I suggest only doing the test after the existing test fails to turn up anything useful. Andrew