On 6/22/2011 12:39 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> On 08/06/11 15:38, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> Ah, so that's what you meant: you *have* to use sys-root to avoid the
>>> problem. I'm not sure that's the best solution...I'm not sure why, but
>>> /something/ about that bothers me. It seems like taking a feature
>>> developed and intended for cross-compilers, and using it with a native
>>> compiler to take advantage of a side effect, is kinda kludgy.
>> It bothers me too. It isn't just kludgy; I distinctly recollect
>> Danny Smith telling us, when NightStrike suggested this before, that
>> it is dead wrong.
In another message in this thread, John E. (TDM) said this:
> Also, a sysroot-ed mingw32 GCC lacks one or two search paths that the
> current build uses -- <root>/include among them, IIRC.
Leaving out <INSTALL>/include from the search path seems to be a pretty
big issue, or am I missing something?
OTOH, I'd be perfectly happy to accept a compiler that ignored
>> The build documentation for GCC tells us that --with-sysroot is an
>> option for use exclusively when building a cross-compiler. When this
>> was previously pointed out to NightStrike, I also recollect that he
>> suggested that perhaps the documentation could be changed. However, the
>> GCC maintainers have NOT changed the documentation, so I guess it is
>> still wrong to build a native compiler with sysroots.
> The build docs have the sysroot options in the cross compiler section.
> The options themselves, however, were designed outside that scope.
> The fact that you can ONLY build a relocatable toolchain by using a
> sysroot regardless of the target system exemplifies that. I guess in
> a way what they do is just really extend the term "cross compiler" to
> be "any compiler that doesn't use /usr/local libs/headers". And,
> really, this may be a valid interpretation.
> At any rate, the docs didn't change because no one mentioned it to
> anyone who can change the docs, not for any other reason. That
> doesn't change the fact that there is a single prescribed way to have
> a relocatable toolchain that doesn't rely on any hard coded paths --
> use sysroots <= prefix.
>> I definitely do not think we should emulate this dodgy practice.
Well, if it's backed up by the gcc devs, and mingw.org's understanding
of the purpose/design of sys-root is flawed, then I wouldn't say it is
If the current upstream *implementation* of that design has bugs -- such
as missing *relative* include paths that a non-sysroot compiler would
have -- then it STILL isn't dodgy to use sys-root -- only risky, until
those upstream bugs are fixed.
OTOH, if mingw64's understanding is flawed, and mingw.org's is
correct...well, say what you will. :-)
> Good. It makes us look better* :) :)
> * according to our users...
Sigh. You're doing it again, NS.