YunQiang Su <s...@gcc.gnu.org> 于2024年5月29日周三 10:02写道： > > Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> 于2024年5月29日周三 05:28写道： > > > > YunQiang Su <s...@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > > > If `find_a_program` cannot find `as/ld/objcopy` and we are a cross > > > toolchain, > > > the final fallback is `as/ld` of system. In fact, we can have a try with > > > <triple>-as/ld/objcopy before fallback to native as/ld/objcopy. > > > > > > This patch is derivatived from Debian's patch: > > > gcc-search-prefixed-as-ld.diff > > > > I'm probably making you repeat a previous discussion, sorry, but could > > you describe the use case in more detail? The current approach to > > handling cross toolchains has been used for many years. Presumably > > this patch is supporting a different way of organising things, > > but I wasn't sure from the description what it was. > > > > AIUI, we currently assume that cross as, ld and objcopy will be > > installed under those names in $prefix/$target_alias/bin (aka $tooldir/bin). > > E.g.: > > > > bin/aarch64-elf-as = aarch64-elf/bin/as > > > > GCC should then find as in aarch64-elf/bin. > > > > Is that not true in your case? > > > > Yes. This patch is only about the final fallback. I mean aarch64-elf/bin/as > still has higher priority than bin/aarch64-elf-as. > > In the current code, we find gas with: > /prefix/aarch64-elf/bin/as > $PATH/as > > And this patch a new one between them: > /prefix/aarch64-elf/bin/as > $PATH/aarch64-elf-as > $PATH/as > > > To be clear, I'm not saying the patch is wrong. I'm just trying to > > understand why the patch is needed. > > > > Yes. If gcc is configured correctly, it is not so useful. > In some case for some lazy user, it may be useful, > for example, the binutils installed into different prefix with libc etc. > > For example, binutils is installed into /usr/aarch64-elf/bin, while > libc is installed into /usr/local/aarch64-elf/. >
Any idea about it? Is it a use case making sense?
