Installation proposal

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 28, 2002, mike stump <mrs@windriver.com> wrote:

>> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:04:06 -0800
>> From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
>> To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
>> CC: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>

>> My suggestion:

>> (1) configure creates a 'build' sub-directory at the top-level,
>> parallel to 'gcc', libstdc++', etc.  The Makefiles call this
>> directory $build_prefix.

> I like this approach.

<aol>Me too</aol>

I mean, I *really* like it.  It keeps the distinction between
in-the-build-tree and in-the-install-tree that is important for
libtool to protect users from unintended RPATHs implicitly added by
stupid linkers.

However, I think it may get the bootstrapping procedure somewhat more
complicated.  I mean, I don't see how to fit stages into this idea.
Perhaps this is just the right time to move the whole bootstrap
procedure out of gcc to the top level?  Then, we'd not only have
separate pseudo-install trees for each stage, but also we'd get the
added benefit of having the complete toolchain built (and optimized)
by the toolchain itself.

Comments?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer