On Fri, Oct 16, 2009, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote: > > If you regenerate your configure file with a newer autoconf, > > that particular message has been reworded to not sound so > > scary or severe; we have conceded that some people insist on > > running with non-triplet-prefixed cross-tools, > > Calling a program arm-unknown-linux-gcc isn't particularly > useful. Especially if there are two arm-unknown-linux-gcc's > which are quite different, each of them needed for a particular > cross-compilation environment on the same machine.
why not having arm-platform1-linux-gcc and arm-platform2-linux-gcc? (maybe because evaluating vendor field is ugly/bad?). What IMHO is even less useful is when autoconf may fall back from arm-platform2-linux-gcc -E to /lib/cpp or alike. > And there is another issue, although not a technical one: Computers > are good at remembering and dealing with 'details' without the need to > use mnemonic tricks necessary for human minds to do their own > 'systematization'. So why encode these technical details in the names > of programs in such a way, as opposed to (referring to the environment > mentioned above) assigning names which mean something to a user, eg > based on the project the compiler is intended to be used for? Imagine > (as isn't quite unlikely) all such projects involve Linux, why > have it in each and every name? > > Just because some people compile code for other operating > systems? Yes, because it uses linux startup code. Actually I think "linux" might not be perfectly suited, because linux with glibc (and its startup code) may be very different to maybe a linux with another libc or even without ELF support or so. But I don't know why a triplet "prefix" is used instead of some arbitrary-name prefix (like Julias_linux_glibc2-cc or so). oki, Steffen _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
