gcc-2.95.3 build failure with 2 different binutils

[Markus Werle]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Mar 21, 2001, Markus Werle <markus@lufmech.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
> > I used binutils-binutils-2.10.1 and binutils-200010321
> > I built binutils first, put them in the PATH, configured/bootstrapped
>
> So why is it that you didn't follow the very documentation you're
> complaining about, that suggests using the same prefix for both
> packages.  Having binutils/bin in your PATH just won't help.  This is
> even covered in the FAQ.

sorry, my description was incomplete in this point.
To make it clear: Yes, I used the same prefix.

Your comment is water on my mills:
If gcc and binutils are suggested to use the same prefix, then it
is obvious they should be distributed together. again:
where can people download gcc-2.95.3-binutils-XXX.tar.bz ????

Btw. Since I do not trust the docs anymore [:-)]
I tried the whole matrix of possibilities by now:
With same/ without same prefix, with gas/without gas
naked bootstrap using cc/ bootstrap using existing egcs-200103xx
etc.
(I'd like to volunteer for the regression test of gcc-3.0)

I cannot see why gcc should not bootstrap with an existing,
somewhere else installed, binutils package.
If You are right and this option is not possible I would consider
this as a bug of the distribution. Should be fixed.


Markus