[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AC_OBJEXT again

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: AC_OBJEXT again
Date: 12 Dec 2000 19:30:05 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:

Alexandre> On Dec 12, 2000, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
>> What you describe is precisely what I meant by `build': there is
>> not a single reference to the host in what you describe.

Alexandre> Nope, the output of the compiler follows conventions of the
Alexandre> host machine, so it's a characteristic of the host.

Come on Alexandre!  I agree the cross compiler has to use the host
ints, chars etc.  But I doubt all the cross compilers in the world do
propagate the right extension by default.

There is the extensions the compiler will use by default.  Call it a
compiler feature if you feel better with it, but at least there is
nothing _necessarily_ linked to host here.  It's a build feature, a
feature measured on the build machine: the default name of the
executables created by the compiler.

Now there is the extensions used by the host.

If the cross-compiler foo is selecting by default the names
corresponding to the host, then fine.

If the cross-compiler bar running under Unix still produces non .exe
by default, then we have to over ride its preference.

>> Because some people might use a cross-compiler which produces foo,
>> not foo.exe, while the machine on which the executable will be
>> installed needs to be installed as foo.exe.

Alexandre> Such a cross-compiler would be a broken compiler.  I don't
Alexandre> know of any such cross-compilers, so this point is moot.

Ah!!!  Then you are telling me we just don't care about __CYGWIN32__
etc.  Then that's fine with me, that's all I wanted to hear.  All we
want to know is the default extensions used by the compiler.  Fine.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]