On 4/5/19 3:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 4/5/19 3:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 4/5/19 2:50 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>>> Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single >>>> GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see >>>> the same fallout of the change as I would if I did a pristine >>>> build in a clean directory? >>> >>> No, this would imply deleting the stage2 and stage3 compilers and >>> that isn't >>> what happens. Instead the compiler of each stage is updated in >>> isolation. >>> >> RIght. Thus I always blow away stage2-* stage3-*, and stage1 target >> directories along with the "compare" stamp file. > > Thanks (all of you). It's amazing that I have been getting away > with it for all these years. I got away without removing the "compare" stamp file for a long time, then broke the trunk with a comparison failure :(
> > Why is this not done automatically? I mean, what is the use case > for make bootstrap without doing these steps first? During development folks often want to rebuild without going through a full bootstrap. Obviously for testing the final version of a patch the "quick" approach of just rebuilding without blowing away the stage directories isn't sufficient. This is actually one of the things I'd really like to just automate. You point to a git commit in a public repo, the tester picks it up and does a bootstrap & regression test from scratch on whatever targets you ask for. jeff
