This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: A patch for configure


On May 18, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 09:29:23PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May 18, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > How about this one?
>> 
>> It still uses test ... -a ...

> I will change it to &&.

Thanks

>> I doubt people who are not familiar with gcc will have glibc installed
>> in a non-standard location :-)

> They are in the standard location for cross compile.

Yup.  To me, anything other than /lib is non-standard for glibc :-)

> The only difference is we are using glibc, not newlib and glibc is
> not the part of the toolchain.

I see.

>> Do you know of anybody other than you that has ever encountered the
>> problem you describe?  Just curious :-)

> It is becoming an item for FAQ for the Trilian project.

Ah, I should have figured it out :-)

> If you use anything other than newlib for cross compile, you will
> see my point.

I do see your point.  I had just asked you to satisfy my curiosity :-)

>> > People like you can always work around this annoying feature without
>> > much trouble.

>> Indeed.  So can people like you.  That's why I'm still a bit unsure
>> about whether this patch should result in a hard error by default.

> It should be the hard error by default.

As long as it mentions the --disable-target-dir-sanity-checking
option, it's fine with me.

> That is one reason why I added -d newlib. Should I add it?

Nope, it just doesn't make sense.  -d ${srcdir}/newlib might make some
sense, but even then, I don't think it's The Right Thing (TM) to test
for.  Let's just keep the current set of tests, plus the additional
configure option, and see how it works.

>> I'm more inclined to a warning message followed by a `sleep 30'

Bad idea, I admit :-)

>> the testing or a variable such as
>> `$enable_target_dir_sanity_checking != no', so that someone can
>> skip this test with --disable-target-dir-sanity-checking.  What do
>> you think?

> I won't mind that. Want a new patch?

Yes, please.  Hopefully, the last iteration :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva    Enjoy Guaranį, 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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]