This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: `make clean-target' should clean target libgcc too
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: `make clean-target' should clean target libgcc too
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:36:29 -0600
- cc: aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <20000726083001P.mitchell@codesourcery.com>you write:
> >>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Alexandre> On Jul 26, 2000, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
> Alexandre> wrote:
>
> >> The fix I'd really like is to see libgcc depend on cc1.
> >> Recompiling libgcc doesn't take long
>
> Alexandre> It may take very long when you have dozens of multilibs
> Alexandre> to build. I understand why people would rather have
> Alexandre> more control over what to rebuild.
>
> But you can always say just `make cc1', right?
>
> There really is a dependency. I think it's reasonable to have a way
> to build just cc1, and test your changes, without building libgcc, and
> I think that way is `make cc1'. Plain make should mean "rebuild
> everything that needs rebuilding"; that's the "no surprises"
> interface.
At one time (about 10 years ago) RMS decreed that rebuilding cc1 should not
require rebuilding libgcc and we've got Makefile hackery to do that.
I never agreed with that decision and would definitely support "make cc1"
as the way to rebuild just cc1 and to have libgcc depend on the various
compilers (cc1, cc1plus) in the expected way.
jeff