Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:33:42 -0400 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Toplevel configury of src Message-ID: <20020709183342.GA18151@doctormoo.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Nathanael Nerode The toplevel configury of src is, as all you developers know, a mess. I've been trying to clean it up over at gcc. I ran into a bizarre situation and was told that Cygwin people might be able to help clear it up. Suppose you're building a combined tree of some sort with target *-*-cygwin* powerpc*-*-winnt* powerpc*-*-pe* ppc*-*-pe According to the comments, newlib is 'always' built. This is false. If --without-newlib was specified and host=target, the newlib in the tree is not built. If --without-newlib is specified and host!=target, the newlib in the tree is built, but it isn't used; --with-newlib isn't passed to subconfigures, and nothing is added to FLAGS_FOR_TARGET for newlib. This is almost certainly wrong behavior. How should --without-newlib behave when targeting *-*-cygwin* (and the others)? Should it mean "Don't build or use the newlib in the tree; use installed libs and headers, or the ones specified with --with-libs and --with-headers"? Should it be illegal, and give an error message? Should it be unspecified, in which case I can change its behavior for code cleanliness? Please send responses to neroden AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org. Thanks. --Nathanael -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/