Re: toplevel 'make' in egcs trips on itself.

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19971030005908.02875@dgii.com>you write:
  > I've thought about this more and can't convince myself that this 
  > would ever work well enough to be a good idea when the default
  > compiler is anything but a rather recent egcs/gcc.   Can someone
  > that really understands the build mechanism here please listen while 
  > I type through this aloud?
Yup.

  > Given that the most frequent issues we see on the egcs lists are that
  > date X of egcs won't compile the C++ part of date X+Y (where Y can be
  > either positive or negative) libraries and all the Linux library and
  > installation environment skew problems, should the top level default
  > make all-gcc target be swapped from:
Actually it's the runtime libraries that are the issue -- the C++
front end (in theory) should be buildable by any old compiler.

We have a "bootstrap" target which is designed to deal with these
(and other) issues (like fortran).  The problem is it isn't doc'd
and it's not the way many folks are used to building gcc.

  > Is this just an characteristic of the gcc/Makefile that BOOT_LANGUAGES
  > is only obeyed during a 'make bootstrap'? 
Yes.

  > Once we cd to cp, should we change CC=cc to CC=GCC_FOR_TARGET?
No, because we might be building a cross compiler.

jeff