> > So the previous system was easy? IMO it's just that it's been tested for > > 15 years. Personally it took me a lot of time to understand the working of > > bubblestrap, stage*_copy, stage*_build, and so on > > The previous "make" was easy. Now even "make" is too much intricate for > common mortals.
Despite all the strange things that it appears to do, "make" is equivalent to $ make stage3-bubble $ make all-host all-target Except that host tools (fastjar mostly) are made with the *new* GCC rather than the old one. "stage3-bubble" is a bubblestrap... the name is not more awkward than the old one, and with the advantage that you also have "stage2-bubble" and so on. > > The point is that you have to decide in advance if the toplevel will > > bootstrap. If you use --disable-bootstrap, it will not. > > I know, I exclusively use that nowadays. :-) I don't mind, with the sole advice to try *not using* "../configure --disable-bootstrap && make bootstrap". Everything else will remain as is, or improved (in the sense that backwards-compatibility will increase). After I get the famous patch in, you'll find out that most of the time, this rule of thumb applies: 1) in the toplevel directory, you can work like in the past 2) in the gcc directory (which, almost always, will be the stage1 gcc directory while developing), plain "make" or "make cc1" will do. No more, really no more "make restage1", "make bubblestrap" and other strange targets. Right now, the main difference with the old system is that without specifying STAGE1_LANGUAGES, you cannot build unoptimized C++ and Fortran and Java front-ends. I agree that it can be awkward; I probably never found that because I rarely work on the front-ends. > > --disable-bootstrap will *not* disappear;rather, "../configure > > --disable-bootstrap && make bootstrap", which currently triggers the > > old-style GCC-only bootstrap, will disappear. > > That's good news and actually sufficient to allay most of my concerns. And > you can count on me to yell if --disable-bootstrap breaks. :-) Of course. I think it would be quite insane to *mandate* a bootstrap. Jason's concern in this respect is more than understood. My apologies if this was not made clear enough. Paolo
