Re: --with-sysroot conflicts in binutils and gcc

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 10/23/2010 10:01 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 09:38:43AM CEST:
> > Also, libtool should probably ignore --with-sysroot if build==host;
> > native compilers are never build with a sysroot in practice.
>
> OK, so this would mean there is no way --with-sysroot could be (ab)used
> to fix the DESTDIR (re)link failures that libtool users experience
> today.  Desired side-effect?

No, do you have a pointer?  I don't understand what failure is there 
that cannot be fixed by --enable-fast-install (so that relink doesn't 
happen at install time), no?

> The rest of your proposed patch could also be wrapped in
> gcc/configure.ac, I'm not sure whether it belongs there rather than in
> Libtool?

I don't recall if binutils needs to know about a sysroot.

Another solution is to do the following renaming in GCC

--with-sysroot -> --enable-sysroot
--with-build-sysroot -> --with-target-sysroot
(not existing) -> --with-host-sysroot

The task of mapping from old to new arguments is given to the toplevel 
configure script; subdirectories _never_ see a $with_sysroot with a 
meaning other than the one Libtool uses.  To do this, the toplevel 
configure simply has to mangle the {host,build,target}_configure_args to 
include the correct args:

--without-sysroot for build_configure_args

--with-sysroot=${with_host_sysroot:-no}
--enable-sysroot=${with_sysroot:-${enable_sysroot:-no}}
for host_configure_args

--with-sysroot=${with_target_sysroot:-${with_build_sysroot:-no}}
for target_configure_args.

The patch should be relatively small, so OE can backport it to 4.5 if 
they wish.  Adjusting the docs and selling the idea on gcc@ is probably 
harder than writing it.

Paolo