From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FcuK1-0004sb-Lb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 21:14:01 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FcuK1-0004sJ-C1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 21:14:01 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FcuK1-0004s0-1L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 21:14:01 -0400
Received: from [128.8.10.163] (helo=po1.wam.umd.edu)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FcuKk-0001Rn-4Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 21:14:46 -0400
Received: from jbrown.mylinuxbox.org (jma-box.student.umd.edu [129.2.253.219])
	by po1.wam.umd.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
	k481E0Kf006190
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 7 May 2006 21:14:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 21:13:58 -0400
From: "Jim C. Brown" <jma5@umd.edu>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] -cc checking wrong
Message-ID: <20060508011358.GA23381@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
References: <87aca2qjj9.fsf@Janik.cz> <87d5eppicn.fsf@Janik.cz>
	<20060508001855.GA15033@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<200605080153.03721.paul@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200605080153.03721.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org


--1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 01:53:03AM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> You really should test your patches. The patch you attached generates an error 
> if the compiler works.
> 
> Paul
> 

Whoops, sorry about that. I only tested the --cc="ccache gcc" case.

Here's the correct patch.

-- 
Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty.
Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.

--1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="configure.patch"

--- configure.orig	Sun May  7 20:14:23 2006
+++ configure	Sun May  7 20:16:58 2006
@@ -293,8 +293,14 @@
 ar="${cross_prefix}${ar}"
 strip="${cross_prefix}${strip}"
 
-if [ ! -x "`which $cc`" ] ; then
-    echo "Compiler $cc could not be found"
+# check that gcc is able to compile
+cat > $TMPC <<EOF
+int main(void) {
+}
+EOF
+
+if ! $cc -o $TMPE $TMPC 2>/dev/null ; then
+    echo "Compiler $cc either does not exist or does not work"
     exit
 fi
 

--1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7--