> [It's not a real scenario of course, but it does have the right flavor > of the problem I wish to solve.] > It's the day-to-day development of a fresh port that I want to speed up. > If I've gone through a run of "make check-gcc" and fixed some random > bugs, with fixes in any or all of libgloss, bfd, or gcc, for example, > I'd prefer it if I could just type make and then make check-gcc again.
Right, what I do is this: mkdir tmp cd tmp mkdir gcc cd gcc cvs co gcc-full cd .. mkdir binutils cd binutils cvs co binutils newlib gdb cd .. ./make-combined.sh mkdir build cd build ../combined/configure ... make make check-gcc where make-combined.sh has: #!/bin/sh rm -rf combined mkdir combined cd combined ln -s ../gcc/gcc/* . ln -s ../binutils/src/* . > /dev/null 2>&1 rm include mkdir include cd include ln -s ../../gcc/gcc/include/* . ln -s ../../binutils/src/include/* . > /dev/null 2>&1 and this works for my day to day development for a full combined tree. It basically constructs it on the fly out of the two checkouts. I think from talking to you at the summit though that you don't want to script this bit of it, but that it could magically find all of the relevant pieces or at least be able to specify it on the command line. I'm not against additional configury hacks to specify the location of each of the various source directories, i just think it's more effort than it's worth when a combined tree is guaranteed to work.. at least for day to day development - i wouldn't suggest taking an ancient release of one thing and merging with a new one without paying attention to which one overwrites the other. -eric
