"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > Simon Marlow wrote: > > > [...] Add support for gcc-style "make bootstrap" which > > will build the > > > stage 1, 2 and 3 compilers in the same build tree. [...]
This is cool! > > Hmmm, I just ran into something counterintuitive: > > > > make bootstrap > > make install > > > > didn't yield an interactive version of GHC. After a quick look into > > fptools/ghc/compiler/Makefile things became clear: The stage1 version > > was installed, so the correct incantation would have been: > > > > make bootstrap > > make stage=2 install > > > > Is this intended? If yes, is this documented somewhere...? :-] > > I mentioned at the end of the commit message that I hadn't decided what > to do about 'make install' yet ;-) > > Some options are: > > - leave it as it is; you can say 'make stage=N install' to > install the desired stage, otherwise you get stage 1. This > is a bit of a hack. > > - if stage1 is bootstrapped, then install that, otherwise require > and install stage2. > > - always build & install stage2 > > - select via a configure option or build.mk how many stages to > build/install > > - ...any other ideas? > > I'd welcome feedback on this one, it's not at all clear to me what to > do. The gcc crowd don't seem to mind doing a 3-stage bootstrap every > time, but then it doesn't take an hour or so for each stage. I'd think that "make all" and "make install" should do whatever is required to get a fully working Haskell compiler from a vanilla distribution; ie, that would be a stage2 build and install. Everything else is the territory for those who actually read the build instructions. The ability to influence the behaviour via configure of build.mk might be convenient, but I don't think it is terribly important. Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
