This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
cross toolchain vs. info files
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- To: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:31:09 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: cross toolchain vs. info files
- References: <SERRANODt3HvoFOAmEa00000015@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Dave Korn writes:
> Afternoon all!
> When we build and install a cross binutils, $prefix/man gets a whole load of
> man pages all prefixed with the target - i.e.
I wonder if it's the $target- prefix that's the bug.
> OTOH, the info files installed to $prefix/info aren't prefixed with the
> This means that 1) you can't look them up by "info $target-$utilityname" (it
> brings you the related manpage instead)
... but if one has 5 targets why replicate the same document 5 times?
It's been awhile, but I don't recall any target-specific elements
in any particular man page or info doc. [And for completeness' sake, the docs
can have target-specific documentation, obviously, what I'm refering to is,
of course, whether the docs get something extra or different iff that particular
target is configured.]
One could use hard links, I guess, if one is careful. [And, for completeness'
sake, I'm obviously setting aside hosts that don't have hard links.]
> and 2) they may override (or be
> overridden by) the info files for your main system tools, which can be a bit
> of a snag if they are built from different binutils versions.
Question: Does binutils install any target-independent tools? gprof?
[it's been awhile, I forget.]
I wonder if this is no different than downloading gcc 4.x and configuring it with
--prefix=/usr and installing it on a linux distribution, for example,
that ships with 3.x. If you don't want to clobber your main system tools,
don't configure with, for example, --prefix=/usr. [Assuming, of course, that
there is, or may at some future time be, target-independent tools in the release -
One can define the problem away, by requiring every binary to have the $target-
prefix, but I'm not sure the cure is better than the disease here.]
> Does anyone know why this is? Is there some problem that I can't see?
> Would it be possible to get "make install" to prepend the target prefix while
> it's copying the files across? Would that be all that was needed?
On a related subject, target libraries and includes go in $exec_prefix/$target.
I'm curious if there's any plan to change that to $prefix/$target?
[I can't recall why $exec_prefix/$target was chosen (way back when).
Anyone remember? Maybe I'm overlooking something.]
[linux hosted target libraries/includes shouldn't be any different than cygwin hosted
target libraries/includes, for example]