On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 06:38:27PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote: > > You won't be able to do that any more. We've been saying that since > > the first top level bootstrap rules went in, every time the subject > > came up - this really shouldn't be a surprise. > > No, what's been said is that there will be a MODE in which that can't > be done, but it was always claimed that no capability would be lost with > these changes. Now we're seeing a loss, and it's a very significant one.
I'm sorry, but I decline to argue with you about this. I've done it several times already. I apologize that the entire process has drawn out over such a long period that we've had to rehash this argument again. I don't believe anyone else considers this important. The last decision I see in my archives on this subject was in February 2006. > > Libgcc will no longer be configured by the gcc subdirectory's makefile. > > Therefore there will be no startfiles or libgcc for the new compiler to > > use. > > Sure there is: the one the last iteration used! Obviously, if you're only > bootstrapping the compiler, you're going to leave everything else unchanged. Maybe I don't understand what you're asking. The process is: - Build supporting libraries for the build system tools - Build supporting libraries for the host system tools - Build gcc - [NEW] Build libgcc - If stage < final stage, go back to building some of the host libraries - Build other target libraries Note that when we get into and then out of the gcc subdirectory, the startfiles and libgcc haven't been built. If we don't go on to build libgcc, the just-built compiler is not functional. It can't use libgcc or crtbegin from the system; they might not even exist, depending on your bootstrap compiler. Do you mean something different by "bootstrapping just the compiler"? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery