And don't you think that talking about compatibility expected by our
users is just a little bit disingenuous, when you're talking about
running make inside the gcc subdirectory? Users don't do that!
Only developers of GCC do. It's only useful for incremental builds; a
full build of GCC always starts and ends in the top level.
Sorry: my comment on that topic was directed at your comment about there
being six ways to specify the assembler to use, not about building
inside the gcc subdirctory. My point was that whatever we did, we needed
to make sure we retained those six ways. You can always "simplify" if
you're willing to sacrifice backwards compatibility, but I don't think we
should do that.
Because it would have to recurse to the parent directory,
Why do you have to recurse to the parent directory to bootstrap GCC?
If the desire was to make pieces elsewhere, the command would have been
issued from elsewhere. I'm talking about bootstrapping the
compiler, nothing else. Sure, there's a value in doing a bootstrap
including the libraries, but there's also a value in *not* doing it.
which is then going to rename your current directory
Why would a makefile rename a directory in any situation? That seems like
trouble waiting to happen to me.
