Hi Paolo,
since we are approaching the GCC 4.2 release, I thought I'd point
out the question of bootstrap-lean again, which is still documented
and which I found rather useful in some settings.
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Yes. make
Because the whole point of this process is to remove all the bootstrap
logic from the gcc subdirectory, which is exactly where it doesn't
belong. This will let us take major steps forward in our build process
How does *removing* something take major steps forward? The whole
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:28:13AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
Because the whole point of this process is to remove all the bootstrap
logic from the gcc subdirectory, which is exactly where it doesn't
belong. This will let us take major steps forward in our build process
How
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:12:17PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
Backwards compatibility is indeed expensive, but is critical. All vendors
do it and we need to as well. You can be certain that if there were six
ways of specifying something in VMS on a VAX in 1979, all six will still
work
And don't you think that talking about compatibility expected by our
users is just a little bit disingenuous, when you're talking about
running make inside the gcc subdirectory? Users don't do that!
Only developers of GCC do. It's only useful for incremental builds; a
full
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:01:11PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
Because it would have to recurse to the parent directory,
Why do you have to recurse to the parent directory to bootstrap GCC?
If the desire was to make pieces elsewhere, the command would have been
issued from elsewhere.
The answer to both of these questions is the same. Toplevel bootstrap
deliberately - as a design decision, and in my opinion, a very good
one - puts every stage in its own directory.
Of course: we've always had each stage living in a different directory.
You're not going to get any
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:25:36PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
The answer to both of these questions is the same. Toplevel bootstrap
deliberately - as a design decision, and in my opinion, a very good
one - puts every stage in its own directory.
Of course: we've always had
On Dec 18, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
We used to have some workarounds in the libcpp-to-gcc interface to work
around the fact that we built libcpp once, with the system compiler,
and then linked it to each stage of the bootstrap. Darwin had a system
compiler that disagreed with
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| We can bootstrap the assembler in a combined tree. The first stage's
| gcc will invoke a stage1 assembler, the second stage's gcc will invoke
| a stage2 assembler. This doesn't have any fundamental benefits except
| for thoroughness; it's an
The top level bootstrap model is to rebuild all the useful bits of the
entire tree as a group; and repeat that as many times as necessary to
be able to compare them.
Please define useful. I'm very concerned if we're doing more builds
than before and don't have a way to restrict the
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Yes. make bubblestrap is now called simply make.
Okay, how is make bootstrap-lean called these days? ;-)
In fact, bootstrap-lean is still documented in install.texi and
makefile.texi, but it no longer seems to be present in the Makefile
Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
| Yes. make bubblestrap is now called simply make.
|
| Okay, how is make bootstrap-lean called these days? ;-)
|
| In fact, bootstrap-lean is still documented in install.texi and
| makefile.texi,
bootstrap-lean is done by doing the following (which I feel is the
wrong way):
Configure with --enable-bootstrap=lean
and then do a make bootstrap
I agree with you. Why not just keep this as a make target? Why go back and
have to reconfigure?
And yes this causes to use
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 09:41:16PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
bootstrap-lean is done by doing the following (which I feel is the
wrong way):
Configure with --enable-bootstrap=lean
and then do a make bootstrap
I agree with you. Why not just keep this as a make target?
15 matches
Mail list logo
