On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
> The counter quote is obviously wrong, thanks for the report.
If I see this correctly, Mike's quote came from our installation
documentation in gcc/doc/install.texi. Are you going to have a
stab at that, based o
On 2006-12-15, at 18:27, Mike Stump wrote:
On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
For BOOT_CFLAGS and STAGE1_CFLAGS, if we change them to be
affected by
CFLAGS, we are going to run into issues where the compiler you are
building with understand an option but the bootstrapping one
On 12/15/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This proves the necessity of two different controls, namely
BOOT_CFLAGS and STAGE1_CFLAGS. I don't propose getting rid of those
or removing them. What it doesn't show is why CFLAGS can't always
influence the build product (as long as BOOT_CFLAG
On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
For BOOT_CFLAGS and STAGE1_CFLAGS, if we change them to be affected by
CFLAGS, we are going to run into issues where the compiler you are
building with understand an option but the bootstrapping one does not.
An example of this is building GCC wit
On Friday 15 December 2006 09:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Makefile.html
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
> >
> > I read that, could you please quote the part that documents the current
> > behavior.
>
> If you wish to use non-default GCC flags when c
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 01:42 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > The counter quote is obviously wrong, thanks for the report.
>
> Why it is important to not have CFLAGS influence the build product?
I think because bootstrapping is actually special com
The counter quote is obviously wrong, thanks for the report.
Why it is important to not have CFLAGS influence the build product? The
standard, is for it to so influence the build product. Why is it
important for gcc to not follow the standard?
Because when I happened to change well-establi
On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The counter quote is obviously wrong, thanks for the report.
Why it is important to not have CFLAGS influence the build product?
The standard, is for it to so influence the build product. Why is it
important for gcc to not follow the stand
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Makefile.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
I read that, could you please quote the part that documents the current
behavior.
If you wish to use non-default GCC flags when compiling the stage2 and
stage3 compilers, set BOOT_CFLAGS on the command
On Dec 14, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 01:37, Josh Conner wrote:
All -
When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and build with:
CFLAGS="-g -O0"
The resultant compiler is built with the specified options.
However, if
I --enable-bootstrap, when I build w
Paul Brook wrote:
> On Friday 15 December 2006 01:37, Josh Conner wrote:
>> All -
>>
>> When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and build with:
>>
>> CFLAGS="-g -O0"
>>
>> The resultant compiler is built with the specified options. However, if
>> I --enable-bootstrap, when I build with the sam
On Friday 15 December 2006 01:37, Josh Conner wrote:
> All -
>
> When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and build with:
>
> CFLAGS="-g -O0"
>
> The resultant compiler is built with the specified options. However, if
> I --enable-bootstrap, when I build with the same CFLAGS, these options
> ar
12 matches
Mail list logo
