Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2007-09-30 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Multi-lib Debian Lenny showed that there is a hole in the current > bootstrapping method. Admittedly, it is an odd host, but it revealed a > gap. IMHO, only odd hosts can reveal gaps :) > When we bootstrap GCC on the first pass, all we really prove is that the > *host

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2007-09-29 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Ken Moffat wrote: > I've long-since lost any lingering belief that 'upstream' _always_ > knows what is best, but my initial thought is that knowing the > toolchain lets gcc recreate itself is a good thing. But, I wonder > if it is ever likely to fail at pass 2 without general failures in > the ne

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2007-09-29 Thread Ken Moffat
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 07:01:27PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > If we are able to bootstrap GCC pass2, then we know we're golden. The > libc is usable enough to create a solid set of tools, and the new > compiler is built according to the upstream default and is solid enough > to build our

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-10 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/6/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello All, > > In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we > can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add > 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6. > > > Comments? As I said in a

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-07 Thread Greg Schafer
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > The benefits of this is that, after it builds its stage 1 xgcc, even if > there are inconsistencies in the chapter 5 toolchain, gcc will always > find and use the correct binutils in /usr. Also it will build itself > using the same configuration the final product will h

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-07 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/7/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is a bold statement to make and doesn't belong here. > The whole world isn't poor you know. My comment didn't have a place here. Sorry about that. I'll remember to keep the personal stuff to myself next time. For the record, tho

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-07 Thread William Harrington
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote: On 2/7/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is my advice to those who think it takes too long... get 1GB to 2GB ram and build your sources in shared memory or get a faster machine. The American Way (TM) - There's no obstacle

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-07 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 2/7/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is my advice to those who think it takes too long... get 1GB to > 2GB ram and build your sources in shared memory or get a faster > machine. The American Way (TM) - There's no obstacle too big for purchasing power. -- http://linuxfr

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-07 Thread William Harrington
On Feb 6, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Hello All, In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6. The benefits of this is that, afte

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-07 Thread George Boudreau
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Ryan Oliver wrote: I must admit I never really ever bothered doing a time comparison between the methods (the build takes as long as it takes). Would be interesting to get some figures... If we can get jhalfs set up to parse CLFS x86 -> x86, I can time the builds here.

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Ryan Oliver wrote: I must admit I never really ever bothered doing a time comparison between the methods (the build takes as long as it takes). Would be interesting to get some figures... If we can get jhalfs set up to parse CLFS x86 -> x86, I can time the builds here. -- JH -- http://linux

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Ryan Oliver wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 00:24 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Greg Schafer wrote: Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in GCC-Pass1, 1 time in GCC-Pass2 and 3 times Ch6 GCC. It also means you end This just made me think of something else, a mer

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Ryan Oliver
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 00:24 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Greg Schafer wrote: > > > Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in > > GCC-Pass1, 1 time in GCC-Pass2 and 3 times Ch6 GCC. It also means you end > > This just made me think of something else, a mere side

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Ryan Oliver
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 15:41 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > > In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we > > can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add > > 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6. > > H

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Greg Schafer wrote: Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in GCC-Pass1, 1 time in GCC-Pass2 and 3 times Ch6 GCC. It also means you end This just made me think of something else, a mere side point... If CLFS adopted this technique as well (bootstrapping the fi

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Greg Schafer wrote: In summary, I don't agree. The LFS build is already slow as molasses and now you want to make it even slower. No offence to Ryan's very good technical skills, but already on numerous occasions his sledgehammer techniques have been proven without a doubt to be genuine overkill

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Greg Schafer
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we > can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add > 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6. Hm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Ryan Oliver
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 18:43 -0700, Archaic wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:26:15PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > > > Comments? > > My comment is let's just build it right instead of relying on a make > target that builds gcc 3 times. If the wrong includes and libs are being > used, why ca

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

2006-02-06 Thread Archaic
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:26:15PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Comments? My comment is let's just build it right instead of relying on a make target that builds gcc 3 times. If the wrong includes and libs are being used, why can't we just make it look in the right places? In fact, I thought