This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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
> overrides.
> 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
that code.

Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]