Just to be clear, you're suggesting that if you have:
--build=powerpc-foo-bar --host=powerpc64-foo-bar --target=powerpc64-
foo-bar
The user be able to specify something so that the build systems knows
the build
machine can execute the host binaries, and a 4-stage bootstrap should
occur?
Shantonu
On Jan 16, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I don't see how this is any different to boostrapping gcc with any
other system compiler. It's fairly common for the system
compiler to
use a different ABI to the new gcc. Why is 32/64-bit any
different?
It isn't any different, which is the whole point. The point is that
what's being built is a compiler that's for a different host than we
tell configure that it's for: specificially it's a cross-compiler and
we're saying it's a native compiler.
The issue isn't what compiler *builds* the stage1 compiler, but
what the
stage1 compiler *is*: if it's not for the same system as its
target, it's
not a native compiler, but a cross-compiler and it doesn't make
sense to
bootstrap cross-compiler (or, to be precise, if you do so, you need an
additional stage, so that compiler would become a "stage0" compiler).
