[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Autoconf testsuite and cross toolchains: configure_options

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Autoconf testsuite and cross toolchains: configure_options
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:53:42 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-09)

* Romain Lenglet wrote on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:29:23PM CEST:
> On Monday 14 September 2009 01:54:46 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > -if test "$ERLANG_LIB_DIR_stdlib" != "not found" \
> > > +if test "$ERLANG_LIB_DIR_stdlib" != "no" \
> >
> > Please consider this particular line unchanged, this setting comes from
> Yes, apart from that line, your patch looks good to me.

Thanks, also to Eric, for your reviews.  Pushed.

> If you need more help from me to test with a cross-compiler, I'm afraid I'm 
> not familiar enough with setting up a cross-compiler.

Oh, I don't mind not testing Erlang cross compilers.  If you want to do
that, that's cool, but my primary motivation was about C and C++.

> It would make sense to have an Erlang cross-compiler, since recent versions 
> of 
> the Erlang compiler can generate and embed native code in the bytecode files, 
> but for a single architecture only. I've never tried, and AFAIK nobody has 
> ever tried to set it up as a cross-compiler.
> Is it just a matter of renaming "erlc" into "i386-gnu-erlc", for instance?

Well, you have to have a compiler that runs on this system, and
generates code for $host.  The canonical name for this compiler
would then be $host-erlc, e.g., i686-pc-linux-gnu-erlc, which is
what 'configure' will search first when given --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu.
But of course just renaming a compiler doesn't make it a cross-compiler.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]