Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
One simple but a bit ugly workaround would be to ./configure cross_compiling=yes
This doesn't work. The configure script ignores any pre-existing value of cross_compiling.
How effective and efficient would such a test be? IOW, are we sure writing to a file is sufficient for all current (and maybe the future) BG versions and other cross compilation setups to detect them as such? OTOH, can we be reasonably sure that this works with all emulators we might care about not to be seen as cross setups? (wine seems to be fine with this.)
It seems impossible to guarantee that a test will detect cross-compiling on all future hardware and system software. I don't see how one can find any test that makes such a guarantee.
However, as I said, we are *already* assuming that this works on all existing non-cross-compile setups, because fopen/fclose is assumed by the runtime version of AC_COMPUTE_INT (see AC_LANG_INT_SAVE).
So, the test I proposed seems strictly better than what we have now: it should not give any false positives, and should reduce the rate of false negatives.
It matters not as the host alias you pass to --host, but definitely for macros like those from Libtool which decide things based on $host. In the other thread, powerpc-bgp-linux seemed like a sensible thing. But
This doesn't make sense to me, because the compute nodes (as far as I understand from IBM's papers online) are not running any version of a Linux kernel. See http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~beckman/bluegene/SSW-Utah-2005/BGL-SSW03-CNK-CIOD.pdf
Steven _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
