Re: SETPGRP and autoconf

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

>> What can we do about this?  Besides my usual hack: I have a huge list of
>> autoconf cache variables in my build environment, preset.
>> 
>> Dunno.  I don't think there are too many people cross-compiling GDB.
>> If we want to fix this, we could use an alternative check for
>> AC_FUNC_SETPGRP when cross-compiling based on the setpgrp prototype.
>> I don't think it would hurts not defining SETPGRP_VOID if no
>> prototypes are available, since passing the extra arguments should be
>> harmless.
> 
> 
> Even if we don't require ISO C headers when building, requiring them
> while cross-compiling doesn't seem too unreasonable.  I'll try to work
> up a patch for this.


That is kind of what I was thinking.  I can see the following cases:

native - already covered, test works
cross debugger - N/A procfs et.al. do not need the results of the test
canadian cross - try headers; test is against the build systems 
build-X-host cross compiler and not the build systems build-X-build 
native compiler.

I can't see anyone trying to canadian-cross GDB to anything but a fairly 
modern operating system, consequently, the headers test should work.

Could I suggest only doing the test after the existing test fails to 
turn up anything useful.

	Andrew