Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog doc/install.texi

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

--On Monday, April 15, 2002 11:55:51 PM -0400 Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> 
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 08:20:44PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Don't take it personally; this is a hard problem.  But it's not one
>> we need to solve.  If you want to solve it, please spend time on making
>> the "./configure; make; make install" do something like:
>>
>>   "mkdir objdir; cd objdir; ../configure; make bootstrap; make install"
>>
>> That would be great: simpler for us, and still make the thing that
>> people are used to typing work as they would like.
>
> I posted an initial patch-slash-call-for-comments here:
>
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-01/msg00182.html

It looks pretty reasonable to me.  This is the kind of trickery I had
imagined, but I hadn't figure out how to do it in a concrete sense.  You
did.

> Loren's comments are over here:
>
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2002-01/msg00182.html
>
>     The #3 comment is something I haven't given any thought to.
>     (and the patch was already tested, BTW)

I would suggest having the default rule do "make bootstrap" -- except
when cross compiling -- rather than just "make".  Of course, "make
bootstrap" should work too for compatibility with previous releases.

Loren's #3 comment is a valid point.  But, requiring a make that has VPATH
doesn't worry me much -- all new systems have that, and all old systems
have GNU make ports already.  (We alternate between almost requiring
GNU make and then trying to support makes that don't have VPATH; I guess
that shows we're not all coming at things from the same angle.)

I think Loren's #4 comment is very good.  I don't know if we actually
need to test for make having VPATH, but if we can it's a very good idea.

D.J.'s idea (naming buildir "sparc-sun-solaris2.7" if that's the system
you're on) is clever and probably useful.  D.J., do you have other
objections to this patch?

I'd be all for using this patch (with the minor variants suggested
above by various folks) and then re-supporting the old build syntax.

Thoughts?

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com