On 31 January 2011 01:20, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Some archealogy turned up this as the reason canonicalization was
inserted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-02/msg01121.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg01697.html
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Some archealogy turned up this as the reason canonicalization was
inserted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-02/msg01121.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg01697.html
Also relevant here is http://gcc.gnu.org/PR29931 .
I am quite
* Ian Lance Taylor:
So it seems like people want it both ways. Some people want to invoke a
symlink which points to the real gcc, which requires canonicalization.
Some people want the real gcc to be a symlink which points elsewhere,
which requires non-canonicalization. I don't know what the
A quick question about -no-canonical-prefixes...
By default, gcc calls realpath() on prefixes generated relative to
argv[0] in the gcc driver. If gcc is held as a symlink farm the
realpath() makes it fail (absent a lot of messy -B, -L, -isytem and so
on). It complains about not finding cc1 or
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Simon Baldwin wrote:
A quick question about -no-canonical-prefixes...
By default, gcc calls realpath() on prefixes generated relative to
argv[0] in the gcc driver. If gcc is held as a symlink farm the
realpath() makes it fail (absent a lot of messy -B, -L, -isytem and
Simon Baldwin sim...@google.com writes:
By default, gcc calls realpath() on prefixes generated relative to
argv[0] in the gcc driver. If gcc is held as a symlink farm the
realpath() makes it fail (absent a lot of messy -B, -L, -isytem and so
on). It complains about not finding cc1 or
On 28/01/2011 23:05, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
So it seems like people want it both ways. Some people want to invoke a
symlink which points to the real gcc, which requires canonicalization.
Some people want the real gcc to be a symlink which points elsewhere,
which requires
