Ossama Othman wrote: > > > I have to agree with Paul. Sometimes it's just not possible to rely > > > on compile/link-time tests alone. > > > > That's ok if three things hold: > > 1. configure.in authors avoid gratuitous use of AC_TRY_RUN. > > That should certainly be feasible unless there are some bizarre > platforms out there. In any case, this shouldn't be a problem if > developers use a reasonable "action-if-cross-compiling" argument for > AC_TRY_RUN, such as a compile/link-time test
I suppose. I prefer configure to just fail in that case, myself. I don't want a random, and perhaps incorrect for my platform, default. > > 3. AC_TRY_RUN lets the user specify how to run code on the target, > > e.g. with a --with-target-run=foo.sh option, where foo.sh is > > a script that runs the given command remotely, e.g. via ssh. > > (By default, configure would assume you can't run code on the target > > when cross-compiling, just like now.) > > BTW, did terminology change? ... Sorry, I got confused. (And I think that kept you from reading my suggestion properly.) Here it is, corrected: 3. AC_TRY_RUN lets the user specify how to run code on the target, e.g. with a --with-try-run=foo.sh option, where foo.sh is a script that runs the given command remotely, e.g. via ssh. (By default, configure would assume you can't run code on the target when cross-compiling, just like now.) Does that make more sense? - Dan
