Re: libgcc move to the top level

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 04:29:34PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >Here's the incremental diff.  I built and inspected libgcc on
> >x86_64-linux.
> 
> Okay, if you can run a few more bootstraps (I'd say, at least 
> powerpc-linux and powerpc64-linux, I'll take care of powerpc-darwin), I 
> have no problems with the merge.
> 
> Maybe we should disable gcc-only bootstrap for a week before merging the 
> branch, so that people running automated testers know that they're doing 
> the wrong thing.  In the meanwhile, it'd be great if you convince one or 
> two arch maintainers to help moving stuff to libgcc, or even better work 
> on some documentation.
> 
> Arnaud, are there any problems with Ada and configuring with 
> --enable-bootstrap?  I think I fixed them all a while ago, but it's 
> better to double check.

OK, so, merge logistics time.  I have done another merge from the trunk
to branches/libgcc-toplevel.  That branch is now what I plan to commit
to trunk; I have submitted all of the patches via gcc-patches at this
point and Paolo's reviewed all but one of them (the $(T) patch, which
is completely mechanical and I am comfortable committing as obvious). I
will test the branch on powerpc64-linux and at least one other
platform.

I'd be happy if folks could test the branch on other platforms,
especially non-Linux ones, but I will be available to fix problems
if the merge causes trouble.

I agree that disabling gcc-only bootstrap beforehand is a good idea; I
don't think it makes a lot of difference if we wait a week, though,
since if anyone's using --disable-bootstrap and make bootstrap to test
then it will break when we disable it, not when we merge.  Shall I post
a patch to delete the top level Makefile's bootstrap targets for
--disable-bootstrap?

Then, I can check that in today, and the merge this weekend or Monday.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery