Is "host" the build or the target system?

[Fredrik Öhrström]

----- kelly.ohair at oracle.com skrev:

> I politely disagree, and am a little insulted, being a long term Sun
> developer.

I am sorry Kelly, it was not my intent to create a controversy and the wording
was not the most appropriate.

> > We cannot just change the default behavior of configure, just
> because it feels better with some other english words....
> 
> I accept your position that we should try to not change expected
> autoconf behavior here if we can avoid it.
> 
> I myself am ok with just cringing everytime I use the --host options,
> but I still consider it an autoconf BUG,
> always will. 

It did make me cringe, but only for a while, I am used to it now. :-)

> 
> You do have a point on the upgrade.
> 
> > 
> > At the moment, we cannot compile static binaries from the OpenJDK,
> we only run within a runtime,
> > but it clearly is not farfetched to assume that such a feature would
> be desirable. gcj has it already.
> > Thus --target might be valuable for exactly its specified purpose
> some time in the future.
> 
> Yeah right. ;^)  Is LSD legal in Sweden? ;^)

:-) Don't you think it is a great idea? I bet that we actually will
do something like this when Jigsaw is in. Precompiling a self-contained
module with a huge amount of optimizations is clearly one benefit
of having modules. And why not have a server precompiling modules
for different target arches? 

> If we accept that we are adopting autoconf, which I think we did, then
> we probably shouldn't try and change it's
> basics and stick with just adding our special options.

Yes, another possible option is of course to rename the script to 
setup.bas and rewrite it entirely in basic. ;-)

//Fredrik

> > ----- kelly.ohair at oracle.com skrev:
> > 
> >> Ok.  You've sold me the bridge. I may need some time and a few
> glasses
> >> of wine, but I think I am with you.
> >> 
> >> I'm still a little shocked at the autoconf terminology.  Seems
> like
> >> they completely complicated things for a situation
> >> that was extremely rare and few people would ever need to do or
> even
> >> care about.
> >> 
> >> For the record, I'm in favor of your compromise.  Thanks for the
> time
> >> in explaining it to this autoconf novice, me. ;^)
> >> 
> >> -kto
> >> 
> >> On May 24, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 2012-05-24 17:00, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>>> So we should talk about this, and maybe come up with a
> compromise
> >> or alternative terminology.
> >>> 
> >>> Just to be clear: My suggestion was to use "build system" for the
> >> platform you are building on, and "target system" for the platform
> the
> >> resulting binary should run on, and that we should stay clear of
> >> "host".
> >>> 
> >>> Rationale: "build system" and "target system" seems hard to
> >> misunderstand, regardless of your previous experiences.
> >>> 
> >>> "Host" on the other hand, is vague enough to be able to be used
> in
> >> the sense of "build system" (as in the old openjdk makefiles) or
> as
> >> "target system" (as in the autoconf tradition), depending (I guess)
> if
> >> your mindset is centered on the build process or the resulting
> binary.
> >> So I say: don't use it at all.
> >>> 
> >>> This means that:
> >>> * The openjdk tradition of calling the target system "target" is
> >> kept, but the build system will be renamed from "host" to "build".
> >>> * The autoconf tradition of calling the build system "build" is
> >> kept, but the target system will be renamed from "host" to
> "target".
> >>> 
> >>> I think it sounds like a good compromise. :)
> >>> 
> >>> /Magnus