Message-ID: <382E8497.51CCA66F@softhome.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 11:44:55 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: lt,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GCC porting questions
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 991114115815 DOT 17579E-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Sorry, I don't understand.  If that is the only way to build GCC, then
> how did we all build GCC without bootstrap being supported?

Bootstrap was simulated, but the actions carried out and the result were the 
same.

> Last time I looked, bootstrap was not required unless you didn't have a
> working installation of GCC.  Perhaps they've changed the definitions.

Maybe. I use gcc starting from 2.8.1. IIRC, there you had to bootstrap 
compiler manually by issuing 'make stage1', 'make stage2 CC="..."' and so 
on. But that was the ``official'' way to build GCC. EGCS and current GCC 
went further with 'make bootstrap'. Docs even don't talk about other 
possibilities, although they do exist.

Laurynas Biveinis