This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] install.texi (again): successful bootstrap instructions
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:08:49 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] install.texi (again): successful bootstrap instructions
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Tested with make info and make dvi; OK for mainline and 3.1 branch?
If you don't mind I'd like to suggest a minor change, namely...
> -If you built a released version of GCC then if you don't mind, please
> +If you bootstrapped a released version of GCC then if you don't mind, please
...let's omit the "if you don't mind" here.
And one question: Do you think "bootstrap" is preferrable to "build" in
general? I'm asking, because we use the term "build" most of the time in
these intructions, e.g. one of the generated web pages is called
"build.html", and I'm not so sure whether "bootstrap" better reflects
reality than "build" as far as libraries (libstdc++, libjava,...) are
concerned.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/