Is "host" the build or the target system?

[Kelly O'Hair]

Ok now I'm completely confused...  I read this:
     http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_259.html
And it seems 100% right to me.

Then I read this:
  http://www.nondot.org/sabre/Mirrored/autoconf-2.12/autoconf_8.html

And I see some confusing wording, it says:

--host=host-type
the type of system on which the package will run;
--target=target-type
the type of system for which any compiler tools in the package will produce code.

I think the "package" it is referring to is the compiler tools package.
The above wording is very confusing and mis-leading.

But I do think that autoconf has the host vs. target concepts right...

Now I need to go back over this email and understand what this is all about again.   :^(

-kto

On May 24, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:

> 
> On May 24 2012, at 08:00 , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> 
>> I've been in and out of the compiler business for 30+ years, I was never exposed to autoconf.
> 
> autoconf is it's own reality....
> 
>> I worked on simulators and cross compilation projects for many years. Starting in 1979.
>> We ALWAYS called the "host" the system you were building on, and the "target" what you were targeting.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with what I have seen in the embedded space over 20+ years. host is the build system, target is the run system.
> 
>> I don't think adopting what I consider broken terminology the right way to go here.
> 
> Ask anyone doing cross compiling what host and target are and you will get a consistent answer and it isn't autoconf's answer.
> 
> Mike
>