> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Roskin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:42 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)
>
>
> The problem is that not every "configure" accepts "--host" but every
> package should be cross-compilable. Perhaps those simple packages that
> don't know about "--host" are most portable and suited for
> cross-compilation.
>
> I tend to agree with you that we should not introduce a new
> option without
> trying to reuse the existing ones.
>
> Perhaps the simple packages that don't use AC_CANONICAL_* and
> don't have
> config.{guess,sub} could still understand "--host". But it
> will have only
> limited effects:
>
> - $host_alias and $ac_tool_prefix will be defined
> - "configure" will assume that we are cross-compiling
> - AC_TRY_RUN tests will not be run
> - AC_PATH_TOOL will test for tools beginning with $ac_tool_prefix
It should also try to select CC first from $host-gcc/cc/c++ if they exist
before reverting to gcc/cc/c++ (if CC is not defined in the environment of
course)
>
> Note that the value of $host_alias will not be compared to
> anything. I.e.
> if you specify "--host" you are cross-compiling. $host, $host_os,
> $host_cpu and $host_vendor will never be defined.
>
> Packages that include AC_CANONICAL_* will have all those variables
> defined. $host will be compared with $build. Cross-compiling will be
> assumed when and only when $host != $build
>
> Does this sound reasonable?
>
Seems OK for me at least :-)
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]
--------------------------------------------
