On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:03:26AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote: > This *will* stop working, > > Then I'm confused: I thought the whole point of --disable-bootstrap is > to keep the old mechanism instead of getting the new one.
The point of --disable-bootstrap is to disable bootstrapping. The old mechanism _will be removed_. I've explained that on this list at least half a dozen times now - including directly to you. > You will always have a bootstrap sequence and a non-bootstrap > sequence, but you'll need to reconfigure to switch between the two. > > That's *wierd* to me. It's weird to me too. We've been investigating ways to make it unnecessary. > In the old scheme, a "bootstrap" meant just rebuilding the compiler. > There seems to be a belief that it would be good if it rebuilt more. > So the way I thought things were going to be done, if you say "make > bootstrap" with --disable-bootstrap, it does the old (shorter) method > and if you say it with --enable-bootstrap, it does the new (longer). If this > isn't what's implemented, why isn't it? The old mechanism puts control of the bootstrap in gcc/Makefile. The new mechanism puts control of the bootstrap in the toplevel Makefile. This is an important, fundamental difference. It means that we can bootstrap things that don't live in the gcc subdirectory. The most important of these is libgcc and the crt startup files, which currently do live in the gcc directory, and folks have wanted to move out of it for five or ten years. We can't skip them during a bootstrap; it just won't work. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery
