This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)
- From: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:50:15 +0000
- Subject: Re: Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)
- References: <10601161646.AA11458@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Monday 16 January 2006 16:46, Richard Kenner wrote:
> So a naiive ./configure && make will configure for host == target ==
> powerpc64 but still (wrongly so in your opinion?) build stage1 as
> 32bit binaries (but defaulting to -m64 code generation now), and the
> following stages will now become 64bit.
>
> That's most *definitely* wrong because we're lying to configure and saying
> we're building a native compiler when we're really building a
> cross-compiler. We're lying as to what the host is!
I don't see how this is any different to boostrapping gcc with any other
system compiler. It's fairly common for the system compiler to use a
different ABI to the new gcc. Why is 32/64-bit any different?
Paul