Hi, Jeff,
Sorry for the late reply.
The following is the reply from John Henning and the updated patch based on
your suggestions,
Please take a look and let us know any issue there.
Thanks.
Qing
======================================================================
Jeff Law suggested that the documentation should recommend building binutils
separately. The same suggestion was made in the discussion of bug 101843.
OK. Rev.2 of the suggested doc patch DOES make that recommendation.
Rev.2 of the patch DOES NOT remove all documentation of GCC+binutils
combined builds, out of respect for existing user practice (*).
Rev.2 of the patch DOES remove mention of unpacking binutils
"in the same directory"
which is clearly dangerous for subdirectories that have the same
name but different content (such as libiberty/, which is what led
to bug 101843).
(*) There are many google tracks, and it has been documented >20 years
https://web.archive.org/web/20001014203336/http://gcc.gnu.org:80/install/download.html
Therefore I (jhenning) suggest that it is useful to provide the clue on
how to have the best chance that a combined build will succeed.
>From b0034a941ff6a74589369a1f79cfc12295edf5d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:00:26 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] doc/install.texi: add a generic advice on building gcc and
binutils together.
---
gcc/doc/install.texi | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
index 8e974d2952ef..a5ac462933b9 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/install.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi
@@ -562,8 +562,14 @@ language front end and the language runtime (where
appropriate).
If you also intend to build binutils (either to upgrade an existing
installation or for use in place of the corresponding tools of your
-OS), unpack the binutils distribution either in the same directory or
-a separate one. In the latter case, add symbolic links to any
+OS), begin by identifying a version of binutils that was created at
+about the same time as your version of GCC. It is recommended to build
+and install binutils first, before building GCC. You can set the prefix
+directory to the same as will be used for the GCC installation.
+
+Alternatively, it is often possible to build binutils at the same time
+that you build GCC. If you wish to try this method, unpack the binutils
+distribution in a separate directory, and add symbolic links to any
components of the binutils you intend to build alongside the compiler
(@file{bfd}, @file{binutils}, @file{gas}, @file{gprof}, @file{ld},
@file{opcodes}, @dots{}) to the directory containing the GCC sources.
--
2.27.0
> On Aug 23, 2021, at 12:45 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/19/2021 4:27 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch is on behalf of John Henning, who opened PR 101843:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101843
>>
>> He proposed the following doc change, please take a look and let me know
>> whether this is Okay for commit?
> I think we need to get away from suggesting single tree builds. Instead what
> we should recommend is to identify the right version of binutils, build and
> install it into the same prefix as GCC will be installed, then build and
> install GCC.
>
> jeff
>
