On 20.07.2018 20:53, Konovalov, Vadim wrote: >> From: Segher Boessenkool >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: >>>>> Fully agree with that. Coming up with a new scripts written in python2 >>>>> really >>>>> makes no sense. >>>> >>>> Then python cannot be a build requirement for GCC, since some of our >>>> primary targets do not ship python3. >>> >>> Is it required that GCC must build with only the stock >>> support elements on the primary target platforms? >> >> Not that I know. But why >> should we make it hugely harder for essentially >> no benefit? >> >> All the arguments >> against awk were arguments against *the current scripts*. >> >> And yes, we can (and >> perhaps should) rewrite those build scripts as C code, >> just like all the other >> gen* we have. > > +1 > >>> Or is it allowed to require installing prerequisites? Yes, >>> some platforms are so far behind they still don't ship Python 3, but >>> installing > > Sometimes those are not behind, those could have no python for other reasons > - > maybe those are too forward? They just don't have python yet? > >>> it is straightforward. >> >> Installing it is not straightforward at all. > > I also agree with this;
all == "Installing it is not straightforward" ? I do question this. I mentioned elsewhere what is needed. > Please consider that both Python - 2 and 3 - they both do not > support build chain on Windows with GCC > > for me, it is a showstopper This seems to be a different issue. However I have to say that I'm not booting Windows on a regular basis. Does build chain on Windows means Cygwin? If yes, there surely is Python available prebuilt. Matthias
