Re: [Progress] Tiny GCC: Pure, Unadulterated, Object Code

[Michael Witten <mfwitten@MIT.EDU>]

On 25 Jan 2008, at 8:16 AM, Michael Witten wrote:

> On 24 Jan 2008, at 7:20 AM, Brian Dessent wrote:
>
>> Michael Witten wrote:
>>
>>> Can I build gcc in this way?
>>>
>>> I've been trying for quite some time now to achieve such a
>>> stripped down gcc, but it would seem that the gcc build
>>> process insists on building these libraries, which I think
>>> is wholly unnecessary.
>>
>> You might be able to approximate this by "make all-gcc" and then  
>> "make
>> install-gcc" (or just manually copying the xgcc to the destination.)
>
> I'm a little uncomfortable just taking the xgcc that's left over when
> the build fails.

I apologize.


For some reason, when I tried

	make all-gcc

the build failed.

After getting a good night's rest and starting afresh,
I was able to build a 'naked' gcc using --without-headers,
a non-linux target, and your above suggestion.


That being said, part of the problem is that the build process
is neither well-documented nor intuitive--at least to me.

While I would love to contribute by improving this factor of gcc,
I would rather encourage somebody, who has an intimate familiarity
with the project, to take the time over a couple of weekends to
clarify the nuances and produce step-by-step (shell) instructions
for not only common tasks, but also the uncommon tasks; there's no
reason that this information should be hosted by other websites:
http://www.osdev.org/wiki/GCC_Cross-Compiler

That kind of documentation could go a long way in encouraging new
developers to get involved, because it would allow them to avoid
a first impression wrought with frustration.

Sincerely,
Michael Witten