From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:00:10 -0500 Message-ID: <4851723A.2050703@billgatliff.com> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200806102235.09598.rob@landley.net> <484F66F8.4020409@snapgear.com> <200806111941.51221.rob@landley.net> <48513F5A.6010008@am.sony.com> <1213285831.26255.152.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080612160845.GB9327@linux-sh.org> <48514E9A.3080901@billgatliff.com> <20080612183421.GD7423@nibiru.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080612183421.GD7423@nibiru.local> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: weigelt@metux.de Cc: Linux Embedded Maillist Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Bill Gatliff schrieb: > >> If the build system derives from autoconf, then a hacked-up >> config.cache (or equivalent command-line args) often solves >> problems for me. > > Only if you're working on *one specific* target for a long time. > I, for example, have to support lots of different targets, so your > approach does not work for me. I'm not exactly a one-specific-target kinda guy, either. I routinely move between MIPS, ARM, PPC and x86. Yea, that means target-specific config.cache files. But that works for me. > Ah, and it's not *solving* any problem, > just deferring it to some other day. If "solving" means helping the tool get the answer it needs, even when running in an environment/configuration it wasn't intended for, without breaking compatibility with everyone else out there still using the same tool, then I disagree. But hey, I never said you had to do it my way. :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com