(resent plain text, sorry) A documentation comment on the proposed patch.
The issue occurred while building the target libgcc using the cross-gcc, while cross-building a target-gcc ../../../../libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:42:21: fatal error: sys/sdt.h: No such file or directory indeed, auto-host.h had /* Define if your target C library provides sys/sdt.h */ #define HAVE_SYS_SDT_H 1 because: configure:26872: checking sys/sdt.h in the target C library configure:26881: result: yes (which is false) So to cross build a target library | --with-build-sysroot=|dir looks appropriate to specify the alternative host root path. but --with-sysroot looks not appropriate because it changes the search paths (that should still be /usr/include on the target tree). So, consequently, the --with-build-sysroot documentation sentence "This option is only useful when you are already using --with-sysroot." looks incorrect to me as we seem to have here a use of --with-build-sysroot without --with-sysroot. Not sure if it's clear, but I'm wondering why this restriction in the documentation ? Could we amend it ? Cheers Christian On 08/29/2013 10:36 AM, Christian Bruel wrote: > Hello Bill and Jakub > > On 08/22/2013 07:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:39:48AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >>> Hi Christian and Jakub, >>> >>> I'm curious whether there was ever any resolution for: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01124.html. > Sorry for not having sent a follow up for this. > > The problem is that configure was checking for cross features in the > host root dir instead of the cross root dir. > > This SDT failure was only the visible part of the problem while building > a Canadian Cross linux hosted GCC, as we could as well silently test > for different cross/target runtime features :-). > > I fixed this problem by fixing the usage of with_build_sysroot while > checking system features with target_header_dir when host != build. > Checked for legacy issue with various bare or hosted SH4 compilers in > various environments (linux, mingwn, cygwin) > > Comments ? does this is seems reasonable to push to trunk ? > > Cheers > > Christian > >
