Hi Akim,
It appears that my opinions have been odd ones out. No problem, just
an observation. :-)
BTW, my comments below are more design philosophy related in nature
than actual proposals for a change. So please ignore this message if
you're too busy. Autoconf has been good to me, and I trust the
maintainers.
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >>>>> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ossama> However, this point is moot since the proposed Autoconf patch
> Ossama> prevents "mismatched" configurations from being used. Is this
> Ossama> correct?
>
> I'm not sure to understand what you are referring to. The patch I
> sent sets cross_compiling to yes when --host. Later it checks if the
> compiler is believed to be a cross-compiler (the usual
> ac_prog_cc_cross etc.). If there is a mismatch (yes-no and no-yes),
> it WARN complains, but will always proceed with a `yes'.
Ah okay. I thought that the patch prevented this from occurring since
you sent me a heads up about the patch. Sorry, I misunderstood. I
seem to be doing that alot lately. :-(
> I agree with Paul any mismatch should be an error.
Okay, I'll stipulate on this point. :-)
> >> I would also say that _any_ detected cross-compiler is "very
> >> suspicious" _by default_, and configure should die immediately.
>
> Ossama> If all you work with is cross-compilers, then wouldn't this
> Ossama> annoy you to no end? Embedded software developers do a great
> Ossama> deal of their work with cross-compilers.
>
> No, I don't think so (but I confess I'm not in this situation, so it's
> a pure guess I'm making), because --host is just what is needed, and
> it is not that expensive.
Fair enough. My cross-compiler aware projects document how to do a
cross compiled build, and I expect to my users to RTFM. What you say
makes sense.
> Maybe I'm becoming a fanatic of `--host', but it seems to me that you
> two people can perfectly agree on the definition `cross-compiling ==
> --host'. Paul is happy because by default bizarre situations are
> denounced, and Ossama is too because it is simple and clear. And
> remember this is valid for *any* package, not only those with
> AC_CANONICAL_SOMETHING.
Right. That sounds good.
Thanks!
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
