This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the newlib project.
[patch] minor toplevel configure.in simplification
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at doctormoo dot dyndns dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dj at redhat dot com, newlib at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: [patch] minor toplevel configure.in simplification
- References: <20020711193310.GA27496@doctormoo.dyndns.org>
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> I want to do more cleanup on the stuff related to deciding what to do with
> newlib, but I have to figure out what the correct behavior of '--without-newlib'
> on 'always use newlib' targets is. I'm thinking it should mean 'use installed
> newlib, not the one in the tree', but I'd love it if someone else could
> confirm that that's reasonable behavior.
I wonder if it depends on one's meaning of "always".
Is it a misnomer?
There should be no reason a user of any port can't supply their
own libc/libm/blah.
Thus methinks there's no such thing as "always use newlib"
[instead it should be "default to newlib"]
and --without-newlib means what it says it means: don't use newlib,
not even an installed one.