[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cross-compilation check broken
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: Cross-compilation check broken |
Date: |
Sat, 7 Feb 2009 22:42:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19:29AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > But if it really meant to compare target with host, I think it should be:
> >
> > if test "x$target_cpu" != "x$host_cpu"; then
> >
> > rather than what was before:
> >
> > if test "x$target" != "x$host"; then
> >
> > Since "$target_os" has no real meaning. Does that work for you?
>
> I understand that you are trying to exorcise "$target_os" by all means.
> By from the user standpoint, the second set of tools is needed if the
> "--target" option was specified and its argument is different from the
> one for the "--host" option.
Could you give an example situation in which this is needed? Currently I
just see that user might do misleading things like:
--host=powerpc-unknown-foo --target=powerpc-unknown-bar
and then the check will think that host != target because foo != bar, without
taking into account that "bar" is meaningless here.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Cross-compilation check broken,
Robert Millan <=