From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:53:23 +0200
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	jonathan bailey <jbailey8 AT triad DOT rr DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Compile gcc 3.0
Message-ID:	<20010624145323.A211@lauras.lt>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010624110132 DOT 13700O-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010624110132.13700O-100000@is>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.18i
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Why do you need to bootstrap?  Why can't you just say "make"?  You
> already have a working version of GCC, so "make bootstrap" should not
> be required.
> 
> I agree that "make bootstrap" should work, but it involves additional
> complications, so if you just want to build GCC with minimal fuss, you
> may wish to avoid bootstraping.

Eli, IMHO this is a wrong advise. The one and only supported way
for ordinary user to build a native compile is `make bootstrap'. Plain
make _might_ work, but if it doesn't, there's noone to blame. I understand
that bootstrapping takes longer and uses more disk space, but it gets
much more tested than ordinary `make'. So it's the way with minimal fuss.
Please note that language frontends other than C are not written in portable
C - they use GNU C, and might use features found only in the same version
of compiler. In other words, building of GCC 3.0 with 2.95 or earlier
might fail in C++ frontend and the like.

Laurynas

- Raw text -