This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc/gcc ChangeLog doc/install.texi
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:48:50AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>> Why does it matter what little hidden directories get made along the
>>> way, or where the object files go?
>>
>> Sorry, no. In the event that something happens to the build, J Random
>> User is going to expect that "./configure" puts the objects in with
>> the sources, just like every other project.
[...]
> Now, J Random Hacker (a cousin of J R. User), might be confused; he wants
> to try to fix the problem and he will be confused. But, he'll poke around
> a little and figure it out.
Okay here's something to which it matters -- this John Random Hacker has
some *scripts* that will get confused.
I have a (possibly misguided) makefile that builds a cross-compiler
binutils, GCC, and some other tools. The possibly misguided part is
that it does the same sort of tricks as the top-level configury to use
not-yet-installed binutils to build GCC and ditto not-yet-installed
binutils & GCC to build the other things. Possibly it should just use
the existing top-level configury, but I didn't want to get involved with
merging the binutils/GCC/GDB trees when I (currently) want to use wildly
differing releases of the three.
This makefile -- which anyone interested can look at at
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/prc-tools/prc-tools/Makefile.in?rev=1.13&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
I think would get very confused and/or confusing if things were in
different places depending on what sort of configure it was. (At the
moment, I just take a cue from http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
and tell people to do an out-of-source configure.)
Not a killing objection, but definitely a thought... :-)
John