From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 26827 invoked from network); 14 May 2020 08:41:02 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 14 May 2020 08:41:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 1751 invoked by uid 550); 14 May 2020 08:41:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 1731 invoked from network); 14 May 2020 08:41:00 -0000 From: "Laurent Bercot" To: musl@lists.openwall.com Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 08:40:47 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20200513215115.GC21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20200510163555.GU21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200510215257.GW21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200513143759.GV21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200513185551.GZ21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200513215115.GC21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.37929.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrleeigddtgecutefuodetggdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecupfgfoffgtffkveetuefngfdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfrhgfgggtgfesthhqredttderjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfnrghurhgvnhhtuceuvghrtghothdfuceoshhkrgdqughivghtlhhisggtsehskhgrrhhnvghtrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuiefhhfeuveegudejgfegudeufeevudeftdelveeifeffiedtieehteehtdevtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [musl-cross-make] [PATCH v2] litecross: Fix system header dir when building native toolchains >> Relocatability and >> self-containedness are where it's at. > >Would you be happy with TARGET=3DHOST=3D... giving this behavior while >NATIVE=3Dy additionally gives a real native compiler (that uses the >existing library ecosystem)? Or should I make a new name for the >latter? I personally wouldn't mind, but I at least have used musl-cross-make in tooling in places I don't work at anymore, and chances are the new maintainers are not toolchain experts - so incompatible changes would make upgrading more difficult for them. It's a question of terminology, mostly. I always assumed "native" meant "target=3Dhost"; you seem to be saying that it really means=20 "non-sysrooted", which I would rather call "non-sysrooted" or "system compiler". And I think most people understand "native" the same way as I do, as the opposite of "cross". So, for maximum clarity, I think it would be wiser to use another name when you mean "native and non-sysrooted compiler". -- Laurent