hg: build-infra/jdk8: 2 new changesets

[David Holmes]

Didn't see this before my last response.

+1000 from me!

You managed to pull out a win :)

David

On 23/05/2012 8:16 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> On 2012-05-23 10:35, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>
>> I'd be the first to admit that this terminolgy sucks bigtime. However,
>> it is build-in in configure, and is generally accepted in the
>> community. So we only have two choices, neither of which is good:
>> 1) Accept this terminology
>> 2) Chose another terminology
>>
>> Selecting path 2) means not being able to use configure to help with
>> cross-compilation. And even if we hand-hacked configure to behave
>> differently, it would be confusing to everyone who has used configure
>> before and have learnt that "host" means "target" and "target" should
>> not be used.
>>
>> So we chose path 1), and will therefore have to educate OpenJDK
>> developers instead. Of course, this choice can be discussed. If you or
>> anyone else have suggestions, we're all open ears!
>
> Actually, when I think about it, it really sucks. We shouldn't have
> confusing names just because some old GNU project started it. :-&
>
> I just made a simple hack that "tames" autoconf, basically equating
> --host and --target (so if you enter one of them you get the other one
> set to the same value). This means that you would be able to to
> "configure --target=foo" instead of "configure --host=foo", but
> configure will still work as intended. I think we should use this as the
> normal way to configure cross-compilation, and use the term "target"
> throughout the system to refer to the target platform when
> cross-compiling. That is, walk down path 2) instead.
>
> Thank you John for pointing out exactly how bad an idea it is to use the
> ambiguous word "host" when cross-compiling.
>
> /Magnus