On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Iain Sandoe <iain_san...@mentor.com> wrote: > >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 09:51, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> [ possible dup ] >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Mike Stump <m...@mrs.kithrup.com> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH fix PR71767 2/4 : Darwin configury] Arrange for ld64 to >>> be detected as Darwin's linker >>> Date: November 7, 2016 at 9:48:53 AM PST >>> To: Iain Sandoe <iain_san...@mentor.com> >>> Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> >>> >>> On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Iain Sandoe <iain_san...@mentor.com> wrote: >>>> This is an initial patch in a series that converts Darwin's configury to >>>> detect ld64 features, rather than the current process of hard-coding them >>>> on target system version. >>> >>> So, I really do hate to ask, but does this have to be a config option? >>> Normally, we'd just have configure examine things by itself. For canadian >>> crosses, there should be enough state present to key off of directly, >>> specially if they are wired up to work. >>> >>> I've rather have the thing that doesn't just work without that config flag, >>> just work. I'd like to think I can figure how how to make it just work, if >>> given an idea of what doesn't actually work. >>> >>> Essentially, you do the operation that doesn't work, detect it failed to >>> work, then the you know it didn't work. > > Well, if you can run the tool, that’s fine - I wanted to cover the base where > we have a native or canadian that’s using a newer ld64 than is installed by > the ‘last available xcode’ on a given platform - which is the common case > (since the older versions of ld64 in particular don’t really support the > features we want, they def. won’t support building LLVM for ex.). > > I am *really really* trying to get away from the assumption that darwinNN > implies some ld64 capability - because that’s just wrong, really - makes way > too many assuptions. I also want to get to the “end game” that we just > configure *-*-darwin and use the cross-capability of the toolchain (we’re a > ways away from that upstream, but my local patch set acheives it at least for > 5.4 and 6.2). > > It’s true that adding configure options is not #1 choice in life - but I > think darwin is getting to the stage where there are too many choices to > cover without. > > Open to alternate suggestions, of course
But, you didn't actually tell me the question that you're interested in. It is that question that I'm curious about.
