Re: Potential gcc-3.1 install problem

[Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>]

>> Thank you for the detailed report.  We do not recommend non-developers
>> (of gcc) rerunning make within a bootstrap tree (fully made or partial).

> Sure, and I was not trying to do that, I was only running make
> install.

Sure, how about this instead:

``Thank you for the detailed report.  We do not recommend
  non-developers (of gcc) rerunning make [with any particular
  arguments] within a bootstrap tree (fully made or partial) [after
  source changes have been made].''

> What happened to me could happen to anyone who runs into
> some trouble during make install and tries to troubleshoot editing the
> Makefile.  I did not expect that editing the Makefile causes
> recompilation of some objects, and the result is a compiler that seems
> to work correctly, except it handles errors and warnings incorrectly.
> When it happened to me, I thought gcc was broken, and I was searching
> the mail list if anyone else had this problem, and I did not find
> anything, so I figured I must be doing something wrong, and I have to
> debug this myself.

How true.  What would you have the Makefile do differently?  BTW, the
rules that force recompilation when you touch the generated Makefile
are themselves within the Makefile...

I think what you are failing to recognize is that running quickstrap
is the only (one-step) documented way to update a completely bootstrap
tree after making the sort of change you made.  Some developers know
when it is safe to do otherwise, but this information is not well
documented.

Regards,
Loren