On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:30:06AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote: > > - Build supporting libraries for the build system tools > > - Build supporting libraries for the host system tools > > - Build gcc > > - [NEW] Build libgcc > > - If stage < final stage, go back to building some of the host > > libraries > > - Build other target libraries > > > > Do you mean something different by "bootstrapping just the compiler"? > > The problem is that last step: it takes a LONG time to build libjava, > for example. If I make a change that I need to give a sanity check to, > I want to compile GCC with it, but not all the other additional code: that's > for a later state in the development/testing cycle. Since building a stage > of GCC is about three times faster than "other target libraries", if there's > no way to suppress that, the time to do this test goes up by a factor of four.
Oh! If that's all you mean, I misunderstood; it would not be at all difficult to add this. It would probably be just a matter of documentation; I think there's already an appropriate target. And if I'm reading correctly, it's spelled "stage3-bubble". That will build build libraries, host libraries, gcc, and libgcc. No other target libraries are bootstrapped. Does that help? On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:35:38PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Would you feel OK if there were a make target to do a bootstrap > without building the other target libraries? The change from today's > bootstrap with --disable-bootstrap would be that it would build > libiberty, libcpp, and friends at each stage, rather than only once. I think it would even be possible to not bootstrap those host libraries - but unwise for the reasons we wanted them bootstrapped originally, and they're very quick to build. In a combined tree we bootstrap binutils too. That's less obviously useful. But in a GCC-only tree we bootstrap intl, gcc, libcpp, libdecnumber, libiberty, and zlib: all things linked directly into the compiler. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery
