On 07/29/2013 02:55 PM, Bruce Korb wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> There should be a better diagnostic. > > If you remember, the start of this thread was: > >> Why is it that configure worked but stubs-32.h was not found? > > That is the correct thing to do. The reply, basically, was: > > It's too hard.
It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important to get it right. We don't want a half-arsed patch." >>> But we know people are running into this issue and reporting it. >> Yes. But that on its own is not sufficient to change the default > > That's a pretty obnoxious comment. Oh dear. > I translate it as, "I don't care if people are having trouble. That's a mistranslation. It means that there are other criteria beyond some people having trouble. Such as, we really want multilibs to be built. > It is a nuisance to me to do that and anyone building GCC should > already know they need <whateveritwas>-devel for 32 bits." I guess > I can be obnoxious, too. But slightly more politely put: > >> No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to >> enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way >> through with an obscure error message. Real systems need features that >> aren't enabled by default sometimes. > > The fundamental issue, to me, is: What do you do when you cannot > proceed? > > I think you should detect the issue as *soon as practical* and then > *ALWAYS* emit a message that *TELLS THE USER WHAT TO DO*. Yes! Yes! Yes! Andrew.
