On Apr 5, 2003, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do we need to build stage1 remotely, or would it be enough to run the > preprocessor and compiler stages separately for local compilations?
It doesn't matter how stage1 is built, it's not compared with anything. It's stage2 and stage3 that must be compiled under very similar conditions, because they're compared, so that's where we must not use localhost (because GCC won't generate the same debugging info when compile a preprocessed file as it would compiling the original file with the integrated preprocessor, and the preprocessor maintainers don't want to agree this is a bug :-( > Perhaps a DISTCC_SPLIT_LOCAL option would help? I can't imagine what this option would do from its name. Is it the same as the command-line flag I've been asking for? If so, I suppose it would do just as well. > I suppose that wouldn't fix the gcc pwd embedded in the binary, but I > presume you either build without debugging or fix that some other way? If distccd starts gcc from the same directory on all hosts in my build farm, it works fine. It's too bad that my patch to get the preprocess-time pwd to make it to debugging info wasn't accepted either :-( > (Somebody said off the list that the pwd problem may be fixed in a > future gcc release.) I tried :-( The preprocessor maintainers seem to be too focused on performance of the integrated preprocessor to want to promote programs such as ccache and distcc, that are built on the assumption that separate preprocessing shouldn't alter the result of the compilation :-( -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
