Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > So far, I've left it as is, meaning that all three builds of gcc are > bootstrapped.
Say what? Ugh, that's just unnecessary in the extreme! We covered this years ago.. > This, certainly, is overkill, but as has been already > mentioned elsewhere, the fact that bootstrapping is the default from > upstream should say something. You misunderstand. You need to look at it in the context of the overall build method. GCC devs certainly want you to bootstrap.. and you already have.. once! Just step away for a moment and think about the true meaning of the word "bootstrap". > Perhaps we could do something like: > > * Bootstrap pass1 > * Use '--disable-bootstrap' for pass2 > * Bootstrap the final gcc > > Thoughts? Strongly disagree. That means your final Glibc (the most important lib in the whole system) was compiled with a non-bootstrapped GCC. That is not logical (and it's also what CLFS does IIRC). Please see the second last para in this posting for some more comments: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-August/052536.html The bottom line is this: the current build method works on the assumption that a non-bootstrapped GCC-Pass2 and Ch 6 GCC produce identical byte-for-byte compilers compared to what would have been produced had they been bootstrapped. This is a test I perform myself from time to time and it needs to be done every time we upgrade to a new major GCC version. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
