[M3devel] new gcc build time

[Jay]

I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. :)
I don't think we bootstrapped. I don't think there's much reason. I don't think it should even be an option.
But I don't know.
It should be faster.

I think a reason to bootstrap would be if the system's C compiler can't compile gcc.
That is, if it isn't gcc, or is an old gcc. Or maybe even that is false -- not sure what the requirements to build gcc are.
Given that usually it is gcc and recent, seems like little reason.
Maybe "SOLsun" would do it, for example.
??????

I'm still having trouble just making an x86 hosted x86 targeted build on AMD64, but I'm close.
Something like
CC="gcc -m32 -Xassembler --32" configure --target=i686-pc-linux-gnu --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
though I'm sure that's overkill to specify three architectures. I have to read the explanation of which is which.
When there are only two, host and target make sense, is "build" the current one that is building the compiler, host is where it will run, target is what it will produce? I guess that's reasonable. So build could always be sniffed automatically and it might as well be native -- this compiler already must exist, or it is stage1 if bootstrapping from other than gcc. ? I guess stage1 is build a build-hosted host-targeted compiler, stage2 is host-hosted, target-targeted, what you actually want, stage3 is the same, and compare? Something like that? I should read up.. this doesn't seem like enough passes when building a cross-compiler, or just you have skip the "compare" when building a cross compiler?

Later..
 - Jay

> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:25:25 +0200
> From: wagner at elegosoft.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] new gcc build time
> 
> Quoting Jay <jayk123 at hotmail.com>:
> 
> > I see this too.
> > I've been experimenting..
> > --disable-bootstrap?
> > I don't know yet.
> 
> I don't think we have ever done a full gcc bootstrap for cm3cg,
> have we? Is there any reason to do that now?
> If not, complete bootstrapping of gcc should be disabled again.
> Or we should make it an option depending on a variable setting
> like -DCOMPLETE_GCC_BOOTSTRAP or similar.
> 
> Any other opinions?
> 
> Olaf
> -- 
> Olaf Wagner -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
>                 Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
> phone: +49 30 23 45 86 96  mobile: +49 177 2345 869  fax: +49 30 23 45 86 95
>     http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
> Handelregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20080417/3977cf96/attachment-0002.html>