> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:42 PM
> To: Ian Lance Taylor
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included)
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2000, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 25 Apr 2000 18:31:45 -0300
>
> > On Apr 25, 2000, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> What does --cross add that we don't already have?
>
> > The only point I see about it is that it *forces*
> configure to think
> > it's being cross-compiled. So, even if an executable
> appears to run,
> > GCC won't assume it's not cross-compiling.
>
> > I believe we should change autoconf so that if $build and $host are
> > different, it assumes that it is being cross-compiled.
>
> > Given that, what does --cross add?
>
> I don't see any benefits. But I'd see some reason for a --no-cross if
> build and host happen to be different but the compiler in use is not a
> real cross compiler. Think of sparc64->sparc32 builds, for example.
>
This IS cross-compiling IMHO :-) As soon as if I compile and run something
for the build system it may be totally unappropriate for the host system
(e.g. I may just get a "this is not executable" error when trying to use
it), I'm cross-compiling...
The fact that the compiler is the same but options are different does not
matter; I could just define "sparc64-cc" and "sparc32-cc" as a small
wrappers like "gcc -msparc64" and "gcc -msparc32" and use CC_FOR_BUILD and
CC as defined by configure.
Regards,
Bernard
--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingéniérie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------
