Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:16:03PM -0700, michael.a wrote:
>>
>> Any advice on compiling gcc? That is the chicken and egg problem. If I
>> install a binary version of GCC, then use it to build and install a
>> custom
>> GCC (which I want to become the system wide GCC) ...then how is this
>> commonly done? --of course I would like the non custom GCC to do any
>> future
>> rebuilds, so that is to say, I don't want the custom GCC installing over
>> the
>> initial "bootstrap" GCC (if this makes any sense at this point:)
>
> I believe that what you want to do at this stage is use the GCC
> version that comes with your distribution to compile and install your
> custom patched GCC that you configure with some unique "--prefix"
> directory (in your home, for example) and hack the configure or
> Makefile files of the project you want to compile with it to use the
> compiler in that directory.
>
> The --disable-bootstrap configure option may also be handy until you
> get the compiler right.
>
> I think that reading through http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ and
> especially http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html may save you a
> lot of questions and experiments, it certainly helped to set me up not
> so long time ago.
>
> HTH
>
> Martin
>
>
I appreciate the advice. I think what I decided should be done, is I should
hack in a command line option that can be used as a conditional, so that way
GCC can be compiled with all of its functionality, so that it can faithfully
recompile itself, and I can just add that option in the make routines.
I went to compile a "tainted" build last night, but I ran into a build error
apparently related only to subversion checkouts, which might also be
particular to the target debian distribution / hardware support for some
esoteric reason according to what can be gleamed from google. So I went to
just download the release sources, but all of the mirrors were down for some
reason.
The error is related to a bison/flex build event, which for some reason
can't be completed by autotools or something... I figure it easier to just
go with the release sources as suggested (the relevant .c files are
pregenerated in the release trees)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/I%27m-sorry%2C-but-this-is-unacceptable-%28union-members-and-ctors%29-tf3930964.html#a11165121
Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
