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

[Richard Guenther]

On 1/16/06, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>     I don't see why the requirement for a "native compiler" is anything
>     stronger than "a binary that runs on this machine".
>
> I "native" compiler is defined as one where host==target.  Anything else
> is something we call a "cross-compiler".

So any bi- or multi-arch configurations are then by definition both a
cross and a regular compiler at the same time?  Or how do they fit
in your scheme?  Note that the difference to say bi-arch x86_64 is
that ppc64 defaults to -m32 rather than -m64.  Still I can "cross"-compile
to 32bit on a x86_64 system using -m32.  I never tried to "bootstrap"
on x86_64 using --host=i686 --target=i686 to build a 32bit compiler
building 32bit but of course being able to run on x86_64.  Will this
then be a canadian cross in your definition? ;)  (i.e. build != host)

Richard.