This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Potential gcc-3.1 install problem
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- To: hzoli at hzoli dot 2y dot net
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 02:04:33 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: Potential gcc-3.1 install problem
- References: <E175ft0-0003K0firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: rittle at labs dot mot dot com
>> Thank you for the detailed report. We do not recommend non-developers
>> (of gcc) rerunning make within a bootstrap tree (fully made or partial).
> Sure, and I was not trying to do that, I was only running make
Sure, how about this instead:
``Thank you for the detailed report. We do not recommend
non-developers (of gcc) rerunning make [with any particular
arguments] within a bootstrap tree (fully made or partial) [after
source changes have been made].''
> What happened to me could happen to anyone who runs into
> some trouble during make install and tries to troubleshoot editing the
> Makefile. I did not expect that editing the Makefile causes
> recompilation of some objects, and the result is a compiler that seems
> to work correctly, except it handles errors and warnings incorrectly.
> When it happened to me, I thought gcc was broken, and I was searching
> the mail list if anyone else had this problem, and I did not find
> anything, so I figured I must be doing something wrong, and I have to
> debug this myself.
How true. What would you have the Makefile do differently? BTW, the
rules that force recompilation when you touch the generated Makefile
are themselves within the Makefile...
I think what you are failing to recognize is that running quickstrap
is the only (one-step) documented way to update a completely bootstrap
tree after making the sort of change you made. Some developers know
when it is safe to do otherwise, but this information is not well