This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc-2.95.3 build failure with 2 different binutils
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2001, Markus Werle <markus@lufmech.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
> > I cannot see why gcc should not bootstrap with an existing,
> > somewhere else installed, binutils package.
>
> It can. Please see the FAQ on how to get GCC to find the right as and
> ld.
I would prefer improving the ergonomy of the docs instead of
increasing the number of RTFM messages. If there was consistency of
information throughtout the online docs I would not have complained
It is a back and forth. What's "en vogue" today? It is a bazaar, right?
How to get GCC to find the right as and ld was subject to changes
for several times. Once upon a time it was fine to configure
--with-as=/path/to/as. In summer 2000 I learned from some hpux
gcc developers that this method was deprecated on this platform
and same prefix was preferred (though for ELF hpux gcc the linkage
procedure seemed to be the method of choice :-).
Now I shake my head when I see this option in the online docs again.
It is even worse: It is not clear from the docs, whether
configure --with-as=/path/to/as ensures the use of this as
even when others occur first in PATH.
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
differs slightly from
http://gcc.gnu.org/fom_serv/cache/16.html
in this point
(I would prefer a runtime error if /path/to/as no longer exists)
I think the procedure of choosing the right binutils has not converged
yet. The existence of 3 different approaches which "may" work
is a strong hint on that.
The configuration procedure should have one single place for defining
this. There is no need to have the same chaos like for emacs fonts
and colors (Xdefaults, app-defaults, site-wide-config, .emacs,
.emacs-myown, ...). Oh wait! Unlike for emacs I do NOT know
which option overides the others for gcc :-)
The configuration procedure should require the explicit definiton of
which binutils to be used:
../gcc/configure --with-as-stage1=/usr/ccs/bin/as \
--with-as-stage2=/opt/FREE-SOFTWARE/bintils-2.10.1/bin/as
IMHO the info about which binutils should be used with gcc-2.95.3 should
not
reside in FAQ, but in the docs directly, e.g. like this:
Software requirements:
-----------------
- a working ANSI c-compiler (You need a hen for these eggs, eh egcs)
- binutils-X.XX (on hpux we recommend latest cvs ...)
- gnu-make (download at www.gnu.org)
- ....
I ask again and again and again:
which version of binutils is recommended for gcc-2.95.3?
[ ] a cvs snapshot fro <date>
[ ] binutils version __________
Markus