On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:23:27AM +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: > Say what? Ugh, that's just unnecessary in the extreme! We covered this > years ago..
Relax. I would have thought that my previous post showed that I don't intend to leave it as it is, but I wanted to foster discussion on what it should be. > You need to look at it in the context of the overall > build method. Yes, I agree. And you're right - there were certain aspects of the entire production that I didn't consider. > Strongly disagree. That means your final Glibc (the most important lib in > the whole system) was compiled with a non-bootstrapped GCC. Er, no. By your own arguments, it would still be a byte-for-byte identical compiler. The -fomit-frame-pointer tweak is still present in the jh branch... and, I do note that it wouldn't be necessary if we're bootstrapping. > 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. The main reason why I suggested bootstrapping for the final gcc is because it seemed reasonable to me to try to fit as closely as possible to upstream's intentions for the final compiler. If we can do that and still bypass bootstrapping, wonderful. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
