This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:32:11 +0200 (MET DST)
- Subject: Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
- Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
On 11 Jun 2003, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Agreed, as long as there is a way to have $host_alias and $target_alias
> > set up as desired.
>
> We (toplevel, not autoconf) call them $host_noncanonical and
> $target_noncanonical now. autoconf no longer provides this feature.
It's good we do that, but it's bad autoconf does not. Any reasonable
justification?
> > $ locate libbfd-2.13.2.1.so
> > /usr/i386-linux/mips64el-linux/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so
> > /usr/i386-linux/mipsel-linux/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so
> > /usr/lib/libbfd-2.13.2.1.so
>
> > Where does that "i386-linux" above come from, then?
>
> Seems like an artifact of your install. I don't think we use host in
> install pathnames by default.
Well, see how AM_INSTALL_LIBBFD is defined. ;-) There was a discussion
last year...
> > Well, this is probably an option, but I don't know why such a
> > complication necessary.
>
> It's necessary because of changes in autoconf that make the
> propagation of command-line flags from build to host and host to
> target not easily available. If we want to avoid using the
Why is that so? I am looking at what autoconf does right now and I can
see that $ac_cv_host_alias is set to $ac_cv_build_alias if $host_alias is
empty and $ac_cv_target_alias is set to ac_cv_host_alias if $target_alias
is empty. Why can't the same be done for $host_alias and $target_alias at
the same place? I hope not for the lone reason of differing between
implied and user-specified values -- it can be trivially be done
differently and more explicitly => cleanlier.
> canonicalized names, which we do, using the macros written by
> Nathanael is pretty much the only way to go.
That's a reasonable approach for now, but why can't autoconf be fixed
ultimately?
> > Have you seen the dependency graphs I sent yesterday? I believe my
> > proposal is the simplest solution.
>
> I believe Nathanael's macros are the implementation of the solution.
> BTW, we already use them. See config/acx.m4.
Indeed, but I would prefer to see it done in autoconf so that it need not
be repeated locally elsewhere.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +