Re: [Patch][doc][PR101843]clarification on building gcc and binutils together
Hello Jeff, >I would strongly recommend removing all the documentation related to >single tree builds. Two questions: (1) When you say "all", are you suggesting that in-the-gcc-tree builds of gmp, mpfr, mpc, and isl should no longer be documented? Or only in-tree builds of binutils? (2) Is there any truth to the suggestion (found in some google tracks) that when building a cross-compiler, it is easier to build binutils in the same tree? For example https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Building_Cross_Toolchains_with_gcc https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/simtest-howto.html https://stackoverflow.com/a/6228588 It is out of respect for existing user habit that I proposed merely demoting it to an "alternative" method (while "recommending" the separate build). -john
PING Re: [Patch][doc][PR101843]clarification on building gcc and binutils together
Hi Jeff, not sure what you mean by "all", please can you clarify? On 9/23/21, 7:08 AM, "Gcc-patches on behalf of John Henning via Gcc-patches" wrote: Hello Jeff, >I would strongly recommend removing all the documentation related to >single tree builds. Two questions: (1) When you say "all", are you suggesting that in-the-gcc-tree builds of gmp, mpfr, mpc, and isl should no longer be documented? Or only in-tree builds of binutils? (2) Is there any truth to the suggestion (found in some google tracks) that when building a cross-compiler, it is easier to build binutils in the same tree? For example https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Building_Cross_Toolchains_with_gcc https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/simtest-howto.html https://stackoverflow.com/a/6228588 It is out of respect for existing user habit that I proposed merely demoting it to an "alternative" method (while "recommending" the separate build). -john
