On May 16, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 03:10:22PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>> a) By default, all instances where a simple program can't be run after
>> linking successfully are treated as immediate, fatal errors, and a
>> message indicating "your compiler is broken" is printed.
> What if your default compiler really is a cross-compiler?
Then you should have specified --host
>> b) There is a command-line option which will force the configure script
>> to allow cross-compilation. Maybe that option is --host (I wonder
>> if it should be something more explicit, like --enable-cross-compile
>> or something). This allows the user to override the behavior in
>> (a), for those adventurous or foolish enough to try it.
> Presumably anyone who enables cross compilation knows what they are
> doing.
Yup. They'd know to use --host if that's what they mean, and if
configure won't let them get past it without this option :-)
>> c) There is a flag package writers can give in configure.in which will
>> disable the check in (a), for those who are writing packages which
>> _do_ routinely expect to be cross-compiled (like GCC, etc.)
> I like this idea.
I don't. It's mostly useless. GCC's target-library building
mechanism, for example, will take care of passing the appropriate
--host flag, and this is probably the most commonly cross-compiled set
of packages, so there's very little need for change.
But I'd appreciate some flag that prints a warning (or even an error)
in case cross compilation is chosen by the user, to be used on
packages that are known to not support cross compilation; for example,
those that run programs in the build tree as part of the build
process.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guaran�, see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company aoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and Evangelist CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Write to mailing lists, not to me
