[M3devel] pruning m3cc/gcc?

[Tony Hosking]

Please leave treelang.  It is a good model for building gcc IR trees  
as done by cm3cg.

On 29 Jun 2009, at 10:42, Jay wrote:

>
> Ok, presumably then ok to prune it just partly, like intl, libssp,  
> libmudflap, libgomp, treelang, beyond that (fixincludes, libgcc)  
> would require some checking/testing. Might even be worthwhile to  
> "simplify" the m3makefile and reach a compromise that works only by  
> some deletion.
> Really I wish somehow gmp/mpfr built more quickly. I often delete  
> their source locally but can't commit that.
>
> - Jay
>
> ________________________________
>> From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
>> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
>> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:41:09 -0400
>> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] pruning m3cc/gcc?
>>
>> I personally like having the ability to build C from the same  
>> source tree. It's useful for debugging the backend sometimes  
>> (looking at the equivalent code generated from C).
>>
>> On 28 Jun 2009, at 23:38, Jay wrote:
>>
>>
>> I keep thinking of deleting
>>
>> m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/intl
>> m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/libgomp
>> m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/libmudflap
>> m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/libssp
>> m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/fixincludes
>> m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/libgcc
>>
>>
>> We don't use any of it.
>> Some of these deletions would shorten our build command lines.
>> Though some (esp. fixincludes and maybe libgcc) might break the
>> shortest configure + make that the "real" cm3 doesn't use but can  
>> be useful.
>>
>>
>> I didn't include them in gcc-interix and gcc-apple.
>>
>>
>> But there are two possible contradictory goals:
>>
>>
>> - just have what we use/change
>> - have a complete merged gcc tree from which you
>> could build gcc/cc1 and not just cm3cg
>> Except we don't have C++, Java, Ada, Fortran,
>> so we don't really have this, but C probably counts for something.
>>
>>
>> If the second is the goal, don't delete.
>> If the first is the goal, delete.
>>
>>
>> There is also "having it all there in case it is needed
>> or somesuch", but that's easy enough to get elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> - Jay
>>