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: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: paul at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:09:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)
- References: <10601161743.AA12121@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On 1/16/06, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> I don't see why the requirement for a "native compiler" is anything
> stronger than "a binary that runs on this machine".
>
> I "native" compiler is defined as one where host==target. Anything else
> is something we call a "cross-compiler".
So any bi- or multi-arch configurations are then by definition both a
cross and a regular compiler at the same time? Or how do they fit
in your scheme? Note that the difference to say bi-arch x86_64 is
that ppc64 defaults to -m32 rather than -m64. Still I can "cross"-compile
to 32bit on a x86_64 system using -m32. I never tried to "bootstrap"
on x86_64 using --host=i686 --target=i686 to build a 32bit compiler
building 32bit but of course being able to run on x86_64. Will this
then be a canadian cross in your definition? ;) (i.e. build != host)
Richard.