>>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I am still confused about what situation would actually call for >> AC_CANONICAL_BUILD without also calling AC_CANONICAL_HOST? Also, >> wouldn't I always need to call AC_CANONICAL_BUILD when I was using >> AC_CANONICAL_HOST? Pavel> You need AC_CANONICAL_BUILD when Pavel, I'm lost again. It has been chosen that (?+ means defaults to) 1. build ?= config.guess 2. host ?= build 3. target ?= host so this scheme will always require AC_C_BUILD whatever the CANON you use. Since AC_C_BUILD brings in its support for --build, it means that as soon as you AC_CANON, you support --build. Are you saying it is wrong?
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Paul Berrevoets
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Christopher Seawood
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Tom Tromey
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Tom Tromey
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Tom Tromey
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Akim Demaille
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Pavel Roskin
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included) Peter Eisentraut