Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:43:47 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The cause of the build problems with ccache Message-ID: <20060119194347.GA68946@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20060119125124.GB52459@ip.net.ua> References: <20060119084827.lsj89qu01wgogogs@netchild.homeip.net> <20060119125124.GB52459@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:51:25PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > - Wouldn't it be better to discard the default include path and add the
> > include path we want explicitly on the command line?
> >
> This was attempted before and failed. I don't remember all the details
> now (you can also go ask Marcel and David), but I remember GCC is picky
> about standard paths: it would treat them differently from other
> locations, resulting in a different set of warnings etc. And we want
> it to work exactly as if these paths were standard. The compiler set
> uses stuff in ${WORLDTMP}: new headers, libraries, etc.
True.
Cross-building was implemented in the days when Perl was still in
the tree. A lot (if not all) of the obvious solutions simply didn't
work because the Perl buildtools weren't parameterized. The only
option was to change the behaviour of the compiler under the hood.
Now that we don't have to worry about Perl anymore, it's more likely
that we can use standard GCC options. Just keep in mind that a cross
compiler tends to behave differently from a native compiler. They
certainly did back then. There may be goblins still...
See also rev 1.16 of src/contrib/gcc/gcc.c.
--
Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060119194347.GA68946>