Status and rationale for toplevel bootstrap (was Re: Example of debugging GCC with toplevel bootstrap)

[Shantonu Sen]

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that if you have:

--build=powerpc-foo-bar --host=powerpc64-foo-bar --target=powerpc64- 
foo-bar

The user be able to specify something so that the build systems knows  
the build
machine can execute the host binaries, and a 4-stage bootstrap should  
occur?

Shantonu

On Jan 16, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:

>     I don't see how this is any different to boostrapping gcc with any
>     other system compiler. It's fairly common for the system  
> compiler to
>     use a different ABI to the new gcc. Why is 32/64-bit any  
> different?
>
> It isn't any different, which is the whole point.  The point is that
> what's being built is a compiler that's for a different host than we
> tell configure that it's for: specificially it's a cross-compiler and
> we're saying it's a native compiler.
>
> The issue isn't what compiler *builds* the stage1 compiler, but  
> what the
> stage1 compiler *is*: if it's not for the same system as its  
> target, it's
> not a native compiler, but a cross-compiler and it doesn't make  
> sense to
> bootstrap cross-compiler (or, to be precise, if you do so, you need an
> additional stage, so that compiler would become a "stage0" compiler).