From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: avr-gcc Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:06:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87mvoushte.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wptgmyv1.fsf@elephly.net> <87twoks459.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8qbr2mb.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziy8g3bp.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8kxfdgc.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9f4spw3.fsf@drakenvlieg.flower> <87twj4m92o.fsf@gnu.org> <878u0fs38f.fsf@drakenvlieg.flower> <87potrz1nh.fsf@igalia.com> <874mb3rqh4.fsf@drakenvlieg.flower> <878u0fypzi.fsf@igalia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38823) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1arAwr-0002Jj-GI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:06:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1arAwo-0001cr-7k for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:06:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878u0fypzi.fsf@igalia.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:13:21 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andy Wingo Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" Andy Wingo skribis: > On Fri 15 Apr 2016 14:44, Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > >> Andy Wingo writes: [...] >>> Basically in Guix we should, IMO, always be working on C_INCLUDE_PATH >>> and friends, and never on CPATH. >> >> I'm guessing that could work; would could try to change the above patch >> (in gcc-cross-environment-variables.patch) to handle C*_INCLUDE_PATH and >> introduce CROSS_C*_INCLUDE_PATH. >> >> I just wonder if there was another reason for cross builds to choose >> CPATH/CROSS_CPATH instead of C_*INCLUDE_PATH. Apart maybe from the >> fact that we would need to handle all `*' where CPATH works for all >> languages. It just happened to be easier to take care of one variable than to take care of all of them. (At the time we also used CPATH for the native GCC.) > Yeah let's give this a try instead. Probably we should support > CROSS_ variants of all of these include paths: CPATH, C_INCLUDE_PATH, > and so on. Sounds good to me! > I admit I don't understand why the CROSS_ paths are needed. But I > haven't looked into it and if I don't need to know, I am happy to remain > ignorant :) This is so that we can specify different search paths for the native compiler and for the cross compiler, which is necessary when the coexist in the same environment: . Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.