This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Do we want non-bootstrapping "make" back?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:27:16 -0500
- Subject: Re: Do we want non-bootstrapping "make" back?
- References: <20061230070818.GA5392@nevyn.them.org> <200701050018.53340.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:18:53AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Once upon a time, the --disable-bootstrap configure option wasn't
> > necessary. "make" built gcc, and "make bootstrap" bootstrapped it.
> >
> > Is this behavior useful? Should we have it back again?
>
> Is this a genuine question or some subtle attempt at mimicing Paul Eggert's
> cleverness to spark your own gigantic thread? :-)
Ahem.
> Certainly, doing a mere
> build with "make" and a complete bootstrap with "make bootstrap" was rather
> reasonable, but you and other build machinery wizards convinced us that this
> would be a pain to support with toplevel bootstrap. So what has changed?
Not much. I'm convinced it would be feasible, but definitely not easy,
so I wanted to see how much interest there was - seems like some, but
not a lot.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery