This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch] Introduce top level bootstrap as a technology preview :-)


"Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:

| > | For perspective, I think *none* of the non-C front ends should get
| > | built during a bootstrap; they should be built in a separate operation
| > | after the bootstrap process is finished.
| >
| > I hope that perspective is not just religious, but founded on
| > technical arguments that we can discuss.  Handwaving will not do.
| 
| stage2/cc1plus and stage2/cp/*.o are not used for anything ever; they
| just provide a bit more testing for the C compiler (as pointed out
| downthread).  Same same java, fortran, etc.

I've already pointed out bootstrapping the compiler stressing only the
C front-end a long time ago.

Then, shouldn't we update our requirements about bootstrapping?
That is, if a change is C++ (or Fortran, Java) specific, shall we
still require a full bootstrap?  

| It's my position that this additional testing is of negligible benefit,
| compared to the additional time wasted building all these objects,
| which is substantial.

OK.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]