On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Peter> 1) For example, if build is some FreeBSD and host is some
> Peter> Linux, then you're not *really* cross-compiling. At least it
> Peter> would be an incompatible change to the definition.
>
> That's news to me. Suppose you're building libjava. For Linux we
> might have a different implementation of the thread porting layer than
> we do for FreeBSD. That sounds like cross-compilation to me.
Okay, let me rephrase that. The claim was that build != host always
implies cross-compilation and that perhaps Autoconf should recognize that
and handle AC_TRY_RUN differently. But there exists a non-zero number of
packages were this would be overly restrictive because building on FreeBSD
for Linux doesn't *necessarily* imply that you can't run compiler output
on the build platform. So this change would unnecessarily affect existing
packages. On the other hand, for the libjava example the current way of
detecting cross-compilation ought to work. (If not then you're really in
trouble. ;)
Of course there are many more trivial examples where potentially
build != host for the same machine, e.g., i586-{pc|unknown}-linux-gnu or
i386-{qnx|pc}-qnx[4[2[5]]]. config.sub just isn't that smart and you
shouldn't expect your users to keep track of all its oddities or worse,
punish them with unwarranted "cannot run test program while
cross-compiling" errors.
All I'm saying is keep the current behaviour.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
