This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Installation proposal
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:14:11AM -0800, Jim Wilson wrote:
> There are 3 prefixes not 1. This scheme still needs to work even if
> prefix != exec_prefix != local_prefix.
> As David Edelsohn mentioned, there could be problems if you have a previous
> installed tree with the same prefix. The tree being tested may accidentally
> use stuff from the install tree if we aren't manually using -B/-L/-I/etc
> This could cause problems with builds using combined binutils/gcc/newlib/etc
> source trees. This is a common method for building embedded cross compilers.
> If you build gcc into an install subdir, but don't change how binutils works,
> then the install/bin/gcc won't be able to find the just built assembler and
> linker, and pre-install testing will fail. The binutils problem could be fixed
> by requiring people to seperately build and install binutils first, but the
> libraries newlib and libgloss are trickier. You can't test gcc without the
> library support (e.g. crt0.o), but you can't build the libraries until after
> you have built the compiler. This is all a little easier if everything works
> the same way and can be built from the same tree.
As a first step, IMHO, the bulk of the where-am-i logic in the GCC
driver should be moved out to libiberty. I have patches to do the same
thing in binutils that we do in GCC, but there's no reason to duplicate
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer