This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Installation proposal
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:51:22 -0800
- Subject: Re: Installation proposal
--On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 05:18:01 PM -0800 Richard Henderson
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:27:09PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> > 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.
>> That would be a bug; the stuff to find the compiler and use its
>> current path should prevent this.
> In which case is it then impossible to build a cross-binutils,
> install it, then build a cross-gcc?
Because the cross-binutils gets installed in the final prefix, and
I'm claiming we wouldn't look there? I see.
If look in the "install" directory first, then fall back to the
hardcoded prefix we're OK. I don't know if we want to do that
fall-back -- that means that relocating the compiler leaves it with
some vague memory of where you said you were going to put it in the
first place. That seems weird to me.
So, yes, I guess I'd be saying that the scenario you propose
wouldn't work, and you're right that this would be a change.
I think it's basically a design flaw to have so many different ways
of doing things. If the right way to build a cross toolchain is
in a single tree, then that's what we should support. There's no
reason to support every weird way of doing every weird thing; that
way lies hundreds of options and lots of weird interactions. Oh,
wait, that's where we are now. :-)
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com