Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote: If you want to make a patch, and Gerald approves it, it's fine by me. But, fwprop is described as a new feature (faster compiler, better code), and the build system affects people building the compiler. The change we're talking about seems to affect only people debugging the compiler. I think these indeed are relevant differences. At the same time, I am sure there are GCC hackers/power users in addition to those regularily reading all of gcc@ and gcc-patches@, and it may be desirable to announce such changes to them as well. So, how about adding a section Developer-relevant Changes at the end of gcc-4.2/changes.html? Andrew, if you want to hack up a patch towards that end, I'll be glad to review/approve (unless some others strongly disagree, in which we'll need to consider this in more detail). Gerald
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 12:51 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: A relocated compiler should not look in $prefix. Comments? OK for Stage1? I do have another issue with these set of patches which I did not notice until today. I can no longer do inside a just built GCC do: ./cc1 t.c or ./xgcc -B. t.c If I used the same prefix of an already installed GCC. This makes debugging driver issues without installing the driver again. What are the contents of t.c? What if you set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
What are the contents of t.c? What if you set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX? t.c: #include stdio.h int main(void) { printf(Hello World\n); return 0; } -- No I did not set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX as I did not know I have to set that now. Seems like a change like this should be mentioned on http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html Because some people liked the old behavior when debugging the driver. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
Andrew Pinski wrote: What are the contents of t.c? What if you set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX? t.c: #include stdio.h int main(void) { printf(Hello World\n); return 0; } -- No I did not set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX as I did not know I have to set that now. Seems like a change like this should be mentioned on http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html Because some people liked the old behavior when debugging the driver. This not a user-visible change; it does not affect installed compilers. It only affects GCC developers who are working with the uninstalled driver. But other non user-visible changes are mentioned on changes.html already. Forward prop in 4.3. Incompatible changes to the build system in 4.2 which seems very related to stuff like this. -- Pinski
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
Andrew Pinski wrote: But other non user-visible changes are mentioned on changes.html already. Forward prop in 4.3. Incompatible changes to the build system in 4.2 which seems very related to stuff like this. If you want to make a patch, and Gerald approves it, it's fine by me. But, fwprop is described as a new feature (faster compiler, better code), and the build system affects people building the compiler. The change we're talking about seems to affect only people debugging the compiler. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 12:51 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: A relocated compiler should not look in $prefix. Comments? OK for Stage1? I do have another issue with these set of patches which I did not notice until today. I can no longer do inside a just built GCC do: ./cc1 t.c or ./xgcc -B. t.c If I used the same prefix of an already installed GCC. This makes debugging driver issues without installing the driver again. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:32:27PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A relocated compiler should not look in $prefix. I agree. I can't approve your patches, though. This patch is OK, once we reach Stage 1. Checked into mainline. Bootstrapped with no regressions on i686-pc-linux-gnu. Cheers, Carlos. -- Carlos O'Donell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x716
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A relocated compiler should not look in $prefix. I agree. I can't approve your patches, though. Ian
Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A relocated compiler should not look in $prefix. I agree. I can't approve your patches, though. This patch is OK, once we reach Stage 1. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713