merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete

[Markus Werle]

Phil Edwards wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 02:00:16PM +0100, Markus Werle wrote:
> > I think the only possible way to a gcc/binutils is still;
> >
> > build binutils without gcc or with old-gcc
> > build gcc using those binutils
> > build binutils with new gcc
>
> They can be unified.  They can be built simultaneously.  I do it all
> the time.

They can? Oh really?  I am curious.

Please fill in the following form:
------------------------------------------------

[  ] gcc-_.__._ can be built simultaneously with binutils-_.__._

   this is done with the following procedure:

   ____________________________________________
   (Your description here :-)


[  ] a cvs checkout of binutils and gcc into the same directory
     and a successful build
   [  ] is not possible
   [  ] is possible and can be achieved without any conflicts
   using the following cvs commands (login omitted):

   ______________________________________________
   (Your procedure here)


* on linux platforms we recommend binutils-_.__._ for gcc-2.95.3

* for the hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00 platform we need
   [  ] I do not know which version
   [  ] binutils-_.__._
   [x] not to try to use binutils-2.10.1, build will fail
         (so did for M.W. today)
   [  ] a cvs binutils checkout of branch __________ using the
         following command:

   ______________________________________________




Thank You,


Markus


P.S.: Btw, if You do it with cron, please share the stuff with
         the community, our greatfulness will follow You for the rest
         of Your life.