This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: drow at false dot org
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 06 09:48:14 EST
- Subject: Re: Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)
> Why would somebody ever want to *disable* it? If you don't want to
> bootstrap, you just don't *do* it!
Oh come on. This is semantics. --disable-bootstrap is the equivalent
of not doing it.
I don't follow. If I don't want to bootstrap, I won't say "make bootstrap".
Why do I need a configure option to *prevent* me from saying that?
- People want to build libgcc at a separate time for the compiler.
So? What does that have to do with where it lives? The libada directory
is a perfect example of how you can do both.
- The current build system has piles of cruft related to the fact
that half of the GCC subdirectory is built using a different
compiler than the other half.
Again I don't follow. The only part that's built with a different compiler,
as far as I know, is libgcc. And that can be a subdirectory of GCC
(like ada/rts) to fix it.
- The current layout is a mess and very hard to untangle from the
compiler proper.
I'm sure some people think the new layout is a mess too ..