egcs-970828: Some nits

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <199709040329.XAA05067@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl>you write:
  > Yep, the specs file is correctly installed.
Very strange since neither Jim nor myself can figure out how/why 
a gcc-2.7 vintage compiler could die in this manner.

It is interesting to note that his has happened only for linux folks.
Makes me wonder if there's some braindamage going on in one of linux
config files from gcc-2.7.

  > OTOH (and this is more serious, IMHO) is the problem that make builds _all_
  > languages for the first stage. Happened to me with sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1,
  > gcc-2.7.2.3; but not here on Linux for egcs-970901 built with egcs-970828.
  > Not nice (couple hours grinding away...), might blow up in your face with
  > non-gcc compilers.
Yes, we're aware of the problem.  You can stop this by using LANGUAGES=c
when building.

I'm thinking about adding a "bootstrap" target at the toplevel that heads
into the gcc tree first, does a 3stage on gcc, then builds the rest of
the tree.

Regardless, this is something we know has to be fixed before the first
public release.  Since nobody else is working on it, I'll probably just
implement my solution for the next snapshot since it's important.

  > > I think the way to do this is to use the --prefix option to install the
  > > binaries into a different location.  egcs  is _not_ gcc-2.8.
  > 
  > You are right.
Another alternative is to go ahead and install it without the --prefix and
use -V to select different versions of the compiler.

  > OK, I understand that. But the ChangeLog files I see start rather late, and
  > I gather that there were changes that got lost. Or am I wrong here?
Not sure exactly what you mean.  The old ChangeLog files were purged and
thus "lost" (though we have copies and probably will make them available
separate from the main distribution).

gcc/ChangeLog.10 and gcc/ChangeLog.11 cover changes in the gcc2 tree from Nov 1995
(gcc-2.7.2 release) to the present.  gcc/ChangeLog covers the changes we've
made to egcs since we forked from the gcc2 development tree.

  > You are absolutely right. I was thinking about the snapshots, but now
  > thinking it over it is easier on the developers to carry everything around
  > and not have to add it at the end. Dismiss it as the selfish thoughts of a
  > prospective mirror ;-)
As developers, we sometimes lose sight of the so called "out of box experience".

gcc has been successful with developers because they're willing to go find
all those dependencies and pick up makeinfo, bison, gnu make, etc etc.

For egcs/gcc to take the next step forward we have to do a better job
at packaging -- it literally as to be as simple as unpack, configure, make
make install to get a fully functional toolchain.  Hell, it might even
need to be simpler than that :-)

  > OK, OK, I give up.  Must have been sleeping when I mailed you.
No problem :-)

Thanks for the feedback.
Jeff