[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Regarding my two patches against config.sub

From: Yann Droneaud
Subject: Re: Regarding my two patches against config.sub
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 10:11:47 +0100


Le samedi 02 février 2013 à 07:38 +0100, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
> On Friday 2013-02-01 16:23, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> >
> >The rationale behind this is: 
> >
> >when using ./configure --host=<name>, --build=<name>,--target=<name>,
> ><name> is not the output of config.guess and can be written in
> >upper-case. For example ./configure --host=X86-LINUX
> But the question is: why would anybody want to write X86-LINUX
> instead of x86-linux?

Or why one would not write ARMv8-linux, where ARMv8 is the correct
wording of the architecture.

Or using `uname -p`-`uname -s` would produce x86_64-Linux

The problem happens when I use `uname -p`-`uname -s` as --build=
argument of a configure script while cross-compiling.

config.sub should be a bit more liberal on its input.


Yann Droneaud

reply via email to

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