Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On Feb  8, 2007, Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> wrote:
> 
> > I would much prefer explicitly specifying that the build is cross or
> > native.  I want to specify --cross or --native (or the equivalent).
> 
> But then, what if you specify --build=X --host=Y --native (with X!=Y)?

I don't see a problem with that.  That just means you are building a
native compiler with a cross-compiler.  The problematic case is
--host=X --target=Y --native, with X != Y.  For that case, the
configure script should simply give an error.

Which may just mean that the --native and --cross options are
themselves not well defined.

> Per autoconf docs, --host is supposed to mean --cross.  --native is
> the absence of --host.  No room for inconsistencies in options.

The options are consistent, but, to me, they don't make sense.  That
is why I completely understand what people mean when they speak of
reverse engineering the autoconf options.  I know what I want to do,
autoconf just doesn't let me specify it in a natural way.  There is no
obvious reason why I can't specify the host when not building with a
cross compiler.  From my perspective it's just an odd autoconf rule.

Ian