From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] gnu: cross: Use CROSS_*_INCLUDE_PATH for system
	headers.
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 14:06:48 +0200
Message-ID: <871t5jcplz.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <1461942751-23883-1-git-send-email-janneke@gnu.org>
	<87zis8naw1.fsf@igalia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36914)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1axZ6y-0001H3-4V
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 08:07:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1axZ6m-0000bq-4o
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 08:07:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87zis8naw1.fsf@igalia.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Mon, 02 May
	2016 10:04:46 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> skribis:

> One final ignorant question: there really is no way to do this without
> patching GCC?

Unfortunately no.  Currently, both a native compiler and a cross
compiler honor CPATH, LIBRARY_PATH, etc., meaning that they cannot be
used at all in a cross-compilation environment.

I think we should push some more for inclusion of this functionality
upstream.

> And why just one CROSS_C_INCLUDE_PATH -- would it not be necessary in
> theory to have such a CROSS_ARCH_... for each ARCH that we might be
> interested in?  I am not suggesting that you make the change now but I
> want to know what the right thing is :)

In theory, you=E2=80=99re right.  That=E2=80=99s one of the concerns that w=
as raised:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-02/msg00125.html

I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s a common use case though.

Thanks for taking the time to review, BTW!

Ludo=E2=80=99.