This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Default 32 bit output
- From: Kai Ruottu <karuottu at mbnet dot fi>
- To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:37:20 +0200
- Subject: Re: Default 32 bit output
- References: <1d9535c10612270113p311dbf94j3b911b7e442aea25@mail.gmail.com> <9ee2fe770612270130s1ad149dckbea09ee297080435@mail.gmail.com> <1d9535c10612270221v75bf2ad4rc5895eb1784bb5aa@mail.gmail.com> <9ee2fe770612270239i4e5aac98ka640c743502fc5fe@mail.gmail.com> <1d9535c10612270246g5808038dr45575e222aea6a63@mail.gmail.com> <9ee2fe770612270310k7478f35aqe43f5f6d24a4e05@mail.gmail.com> <1d9535c10612270624p54db906je30bf8c147f8e438@mail.gmail.com> <EDC8DDD212FEB34C884CBB0EE8EC2D91216679@namailgen.corp.adobe.com>
John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote:
The "../configure" part means it won't work, since you cannot build GCC in the GCC source directory, nor any subdirectory thereof, and that the GCC source should be rm'd and re-untar'd
Is this some kind of stupid joke or what? What on earth it does matter
where the self-made $build directory is?
What on earth reason the GCC build has to expect or care about something
below the $build directory? People
should be free to choose their (originally empty) $build directory to be
anywhere they like it be!
I myself have NEVER since gcc-2.95 which allowed building in the
sources itself, used anything else than a
subdirectory in the main GCC sources, for instance 'gcc-4.1.1/build' in
the gcc-4.1.1 case. And have NEVER
seen any problems with this! Maybe because I have built only 1000 or
some hundreds more than that GCCs
during that 'past 2.95' time :-(
What are the problems I should see?