On Feb 25, 2000, "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Cross-compilation should be turned off unless some autoconf macro
> exists that says "this package is cross-compiler capable".
Agreed.
> If the compiler can't run the compiler test program and this
> special macro isn't present, configuration should fail right
> there.
And the error message should suggest the use of a switch to force
configure to accept a cross-compiler, if that is the case.
--enable-cross-compilation is quite reasonable as such flag.
Which reminds me that we should have means to aid developers in better
supporting cross compilation, particularly in packages that need both
a cross and a native compiler (Kaffe and libtool2 come to mind). We
should have separate result-variable (cache) domains for tests that
affect the different compilers, and we need standardized flags to
affect the native compiler, when the default compiler is a cross
compiler.
> 2) If you've already tested for C and that decided it _wasn't_
> cross-compiling, then you test for C++ and it decides you _are_
> cross-compiling, that should be a fatal error right there, too.
I agree. Any previous tests for libraries, header files, etc, using
one compiler, would be invalid for the other compiler, so it's better
to fail right away. At least before we have explicit support for
mixed cross/non-cross builds.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Enjoy Guaranį
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company aoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and Evangelist CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Write to mailing lists, not to me
