------- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-01-20 20:56 -------

I don't think this is a libstdc++ bug per se, but configure/build and possibly
libtool-related.  But I don't see a configure/build category (only a keyword),
so the current mis-categorization shall continue. I will add a documentation
keyword to this bug though.

And I'm also not convinced that the current (possibly changed) behaviour is a
bug. I do believe that --build and --host flags should be explained better in
the gcc docs, however.

My understanding of this issue, which may be fatally flawed, is summarized as:

It looks like some cross or canadian-cross configure or build behaviour changed
between 4.2.x and 4.3.x. This change may or may not be for the better, I don't 
know.

This configure snippet will work with 4.2.x and 4.3.x:

--build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu -target=mips-linux-gnu

whereas the --build part used to not be necessary. (Although I suppose omitting
both host and build flags might work too, or just supplying
--host=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu when compiling on x86_64 so that auto-detected
--build will be filled in equivalently.)

Not quite sure what to do to "fix" this bug and close the bug report. Ralf, and
ideas? Is my summary above correct?

Note neither --build nor --host are documented here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
or
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html

This seems like something that should be clarified to me. 


-- 

bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  GCC build triplet|                            |i686-pc-linux-gnu
   GCC host triplet|                            |x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
 GCC target triplet|                            |mips-linux-gnu
           Keywords|                            |documentation
      Known to fail|                            |4.3.0
      Known to work|                            |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35942

Reply via email to