PING Re: [Patch][doc][PR101843]clarification on building gcc and binutils together

PING Re: [Patch][doc][PR101843]clarification on building gcc and binutils together

[John Henning]

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" <gcc-patches-bounces+john.henning=oracle.com@gcc.gnu.org on behalf of gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> 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

Re: PING Re: [Patch][doc][PR101843]clarification on building gcc and binutils together

[Jeff Law]

On 10/14/2021 9:52 AM, John Henning wrote:
> Hi Jeff, not sure what you mean by "all", please can you clarify?
Anything related to single tree builds needs to be removed.


>
> On 9/23/21, 7:08 AM, "Gcc-patches on behalf of John Henning via Gcc-patches" <gcc-patches-bounces+john.henning=oracle.com@gcc.gnu.org on behalf of gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> 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?
gmp, mpfr, mpc and isl are requirements for building gcc and are not 
germane to this discussion.

binutils is not a requirement for building gcc and any documentation 
related to single tree builds using binutils, gdb & friends that are not 
strictly needed to build gcc should be removed.

>
>      (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 used to be easier when Cygnus kept those bits working.  There's 
enough divergence across the projects these days that it's easier to 
build them separately and independently.  It's been that way for, I'd 
guess 15-20 years now.

>
>      It is out of respect for existing user habit that I proposed merely demoting it to an "alternative" method (while "recommending" the separate build).
That existing user habit needs to be broken :-)

jeff