On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 10:45:36PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > What is wrong exactly? Why should 2 different build processes generate the
> > same executable? Is there a (written) rule about this?
>
> No, there is no written
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> What is wrong exactly? Why should 2 different build processes generate the
> same executable? Is there a (written) rule about this?
No, there is no written rule. However, some folks (like me) are concerned
with matters of binary
> Umm.. you've missed my point.
Not really if you read correctly. :-) I was saying that the compilers are
not meant to be identical in the general case.
> To reiterate, this is different behaviour from past GCC releases, and it
> appears wrong to me.
What is wrong exactly? Why should 2 differ
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Isn't that always the case in general? With a 'make bootstrap' the compiler
> is built by itself whereas with a bare 'make' it is built by the installed
> compiler. So in general the final compilers are not identical.
Umm.. you'
> This means you get a different compiler depending on whether you `make
> bootstrap'ed it or not, which just seems wrong to me. This never used to
> be the case.
Isn't that always the case in general? With a 'make bootstrap' the compiler
is built by itself whereas with a bare 'make' it is built
Hi
There are occasions, especially when bootstrapping a whole new World where
one needs to build GCC multiple times, that you don't want to be
bootstrapping GCC on every invocation, only the first.
On x86 with GCC-4 and above, `make bootstrap' results in the compiler being
built with `BOOT_CFLAGS
