gcc/gcc ChangeLog doc/install.texi

[DJ Delorie]

> Now, Phil's patch, with a minor change or two, would allow you to say:
> 
>   "./configure; make"

You can say that now, without Phil's patch.

> Why does it matter what little hidden directories get made along the
> way, or where the object files go?  It seems to me that the *interface*
> is much more important; that supporting the "natural way to build
> a project" is what we're after.  Do you agree?

Sorry, no.  In the event that something happens to the build, J Random
User is going to expect that "./configure" puts the objects in with
the sources, just like every other project.

If we're going to remove support for "./configure" then we should
abort with an error message saying that, with suitable directions.
Any type of behind-the-scenes activity is just going to confuse
people.