On 8/6/2010 1:19 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:26:30AM CEST: >>>> So, you could easily create a test that uses the native system compiler >>>> to "fake" a cross-toolchain "sysroot" test.
>> Dunno. It's possible that all you really need from lib are elements in >> that directory alone, and no subs. For include, though, who knows how >> ugly the #include chain could be, with sys/ and bits/ and sys/bits/ and >> sys/bits/$arch and all. (Oh, and multilib: what about lib64?) > > libtool is not known to install files itself below $includedir, so for > include, it would seem sufficient to simply 'ln -s' it when $build has > real symlinks, and skip the test if $build is w32. Yes, I think that would work. > Wrt. lib and lib32, lib64, can we find out all files GCC needs by asking > it several -print-* questions? Plus maybe optimistically searching for > libc and ld*.so? Well, if the test is skipped for $build=w32, maybe we can rely on ldd? That is, use the system compiler to build a hello world all, use ldd to figure out what libs it is linked to, and where they come from? >> Well, if it's an optional test, then it would be okay to rely on >> non-standard (but common) tools, right? Because symlink-tree is taking >> over ten minutes to do my /usr/include, but lndir was less than 30 seconds. > > Sure. I really intend to only have a few dozen of those links at most, > though; hopefully. Ack. -- Chuck
