[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes: > > I don't believe anyone else considers this important. > > The history on this sort of thing is that people don't pay attention > until it happens and then everybody starts yelling about bootstrap > time increasing ... > > > - 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.
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. Ian
