From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29932 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2006 11:30:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 29923 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2006 11:30:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (HELO nz-out-0102.google.com) (64.233.162.207) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:30:53 +0000 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id q3so296350nzb for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.181.12 with SMTP id d12mr3035139qbf.1163158250982; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:30:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.84.17 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:30:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <13d245450611100330s7ee0cda4q264c2fe687954185@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:30:00 -0000 From: "Lalit Seth" To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC COMPILE OPTIONS In-Reply-To: <455214A4.1090600@sbcglobal.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13d245450611072329n502b17fdm60d984ce426f966a@mail.gmail.com> <455214A4.1090600@sbcglobal.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 I have experienced that GCC fails to compile with gmake but gets successfully compiled when gmake bootstrap-lean is used. Why so. This was on HPUX 11.11 for version 3.3.2 On 11/8/06, Tim Prince wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > "Lalit Seth" writes: > > > >> I like to knw why we use "gmake bootstrap-lean" to compile GCC instead > >> of "gmake". How they are different and what behaviour changes are > >> there in 2 cases for GCC compiler. > > > > We have no idea why you do that. > > > > The difference is that during bootstrap-lean old stages are removed > > when they are no longer needed. That is, bootstrap-lean uses less > > disk space. There is no difference in the compiler. > > > I thought OP might be asking why it took so long for gcc build to > implement a default which should know when bootstrap is required. Only > the recent versions can build from scratch without explicit bootstrap > option. >