Ben Elliston wrote: > So I take it that at this stage we've not commenced the process of > having libgcc's configury run autoconf tests on the target compiler? > (Rather than having to hardwire most target details into the t-* files?) > Any objections to starting down this path?
We should also be very careful not to introduce differences between native and cross compilers. So, we should have no run-time tests, no tests that look at /proc, headers in /usr/include, etc. I consider it important that a Canadian-native compiler (i.e., one where $host = $target, but $build != $host) and a native compiler (i.e., one where $host = $build = $target) behave identically, given the same configuration options. If we decide to go with autoconf, and we are building a Canadian cross, we should of course test the $build->$target compiler (which is the one we'll be using to build the libraries), rather than the $host->$target compiler (which may be the one in the tree). Given the constraints, I'm not sure that autoconf is a huge win. I'm not violently opposed, but I'm not sure there are big benefits. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
