This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: building binutils from same directory as gcc
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:11:21 -0700
- Subject: Re: building binutils from same directory as gcc
- References: <BANLkTikmsXKgUT43wCjR5+djON7TBZKT6A@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinXXM_2739KS-GFZBvWSgXUT-_hwA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimoi-WbtLSCGCLXAOwSn-A1DOaRdg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110301444330.3250@gerinyyl.fvgr> <4EAFD7AC.4000806@redhat.com> <D3F72292-9008-422C-AB7C-598D3F81A1AB@comcast.net> <4EB11071.5050203@redhat.com>
On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:42 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 04:51 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2011 01:51 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>> Why not just declare
>>>> that building from the same directory is not support and have one
>>>> simple set of instructions that always works, as opposed to "this
>>>> ought to work with snapshots but not with direct checkouts"?
>>>
>>> That's right. Is there ever any advantage to building in-srcdir?
>>
>> Yes. You can do configure && make && make install.
>
> Huh?
Ah, yes, yet another advantage, one can also do:
./configure && make && make install
:-) I do realize that you may not choose to value the feature, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same valuation you have.