Adding a new config option, mind if I check this in?

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Rob Landley wrote:

> > This option is imo an inappropriate and dubious hack which is properly
> > solved via sysroot since a long time now, yes.
> 
> Not for non-gcc compilers,

If those compilers wish to be relevant for the range of environments in 
which GCC is used, it is inevitable they will grow sysroot support.  It's 
possible they might be able to avoid some of the older pre-sysroot 
systems.

> older versions of gcc,

The first version of FSF GCC with uClibc support is 4.2, after I added the 
relevant support.  GCC versions since 3.3.3 support sysroots.  People 
patching uClibc support into ancient versions of GCC - or patching it into 
those versions long ago when they were current but leaving those patches 
uncontributed for years - must expect problems using modern versions of 
other software, probably including modern versions of uClibc.  I'm sure 
sysroot support can be backported just as uClibc support can be.

> or configurations that don't 
> use sysroot.

My point is not that the configuration option is wrong, but that the 
description should refer to "non-sysrooted relocatable configurations" if 
that is the actual issue.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph at codesourcery.com