On 4 Jul 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > configure: WARNING: For backwards compatibility, --build will be set to --host
> > if a cross compiler can not be found
>
> This is not true. Akim committed the patch without updating the
> documentation. Now, --build is guessed unless explicitly specified.
I do not think that is what we agreed to. If you don't
set $build to the value passed as --host in the case
where --host is the only argument and a cross compiler is not
found, then there is no backwards compatibility. That was
kind of the point of reverting back to the old system to
begin with. Also note that this warning is only printed
in the case where only --host is passed.
> If --host is specified but --build isn't, we'll enter
> cross-compilation mode if an executable generated by the compiler
> can't be run. If both --host and --build are specified, and they're
> different, we enter cross compilation mode unconditionally. If
> they're equal, or not specified, we will reject a cross compiler.
My patch follows those semantics, except in the case where a cross
compiler is not detected, and then it reverts to the old semantics.
I am not sure what you mena by "reject a cross compiler".
> > The next problem is that when a cross compiler is not
> > detected, we need to reset --build to --host.
>
> Why?!?
I can't believe what I am reading. Are you now saying that
backward compatibility with the old --build --host semantics
is a bad thing?
The old semantics would set $build to i386-pc-linux with the following:
./configure --host=i386-pc-linux
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
