[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LD not precious?
From: |
Philip A. Prindeville |
Subject: |
Re: LD not precious? |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:35:11 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091112 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 |
On 01/14/2010 06:38 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Philip A. Prindeville on 1/14/2010 4:39 PM:
>>> And the *_TOOL will then cause the right thing to happen if you
>>> ./configure --host=foo-bar-alias
>>>
>>> (i.e., try foo-bar-alias-ld first, just like with $CC).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ralf
>>
>> Would be nice if c.m4 contained that...
>
> Why? The whole point is that you can compile and link a program using
> just $CC, so LD should not be needed in those cases. It is only desirable
> to mark it precious in the cases where LD will be used in addition to CC,
> but since that should not be the default for all packages, then the
> packages that WANT to use LD should be the ones responsible for marking it
> precious. I don't see anything wrong with autoconf's current behavior.
Right. And I'm saying that in 99% of the cases where cross-compilation is
happening (i.e. $host != $target), that the loader *is* needed.
Regrettably, most people do an extremely bad job writing cross-compilation
friendly packages.
Good tools could go a long way helping here.
- LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?,
Philip A. Prindeville <=
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14