what should bootstrap *really* do?
Richard Earnshaw
rearnsha@arm.com
Tue Nov 14 10:10:00 GMT 2000
dj@redhat.com said:
> As for developers, it seems they fall into two categories: those who
> want bootstraps to be restartable, and those who don't. The ones who
> don't can simply run "make clean" or "rm *.o" (which they'd have to do
> with the old bootstrap too), and the ones who do need lots of help
> from the Makefile.
Since we seem to be gathering opinions....
What *I* want to do (when I'm tracking down a problem). Is the equivalent
of the following, which was possible with the old system.
Fix foo.c (eg combine.c):
# rebuild the bits of my compiler that have changed
make bootstrap3
# test my change -- if it works, do a full bootstrap.
Yes, I know that the compare will fail, but at this point I don't care. I
want to see first that it has fixed the problem I was working on.
I don't want to wait 6+ hours for a full bootstrap. I don't want to start
faffing with stamp files (that's error prone) and I don't want two builds,
one made with bootstrap and one with plain make -- that just wastes disk
space.
I could do all of those things with the old build system. I can't do them
with the new one.
About the only rule that I might have added to the old system was "make
unstageX" (X=1,2,3...), which would effectively reverse the effect of
"make stageX".
R.
More information about the Gcc
mailing list