------- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-06 08:46
-------
> How is it any worse than having those flags in CC? CC and CFLAGS are always
> supposed to be used together anyway---the only difference with what you're
> describing is that this follows the standard variable convention. (And surely
> you're not implying that CFLAGS is supposed to be passed to xgcc or some other
> stage, instead of BOOT_CFLAGS or similar?)
It's worse because tweaking CFLAGS makes you think you can do whatever you
want with it. You cannot, as explained by Andreas.
> I understand that things are necessarily complicated in GCC's build system,
> that you can have up to three (four?) different compilers and associated
> options, etc. etc. No problem with that. What I don't understand is why, in
> the simplest ("degenerate") case of bootstrapping a compiler on the target
> system, I can't just blithely set CC+CFLAGS and have it work in the expected
> way.
You're precisely *not* bootstrapping a compiler on the target system, you're
building a 32-bit compiler (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) by starting with a 64-bit
one. This is a cross-compilation. You cannot use a bootstrap in that case.
I guess it's not what you intended, that's why tweaking CFLAGS is dangerous.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28515
