From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: brent@rcfile.org
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: hacking gcc - avoiding bootstrap?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:14:00 -0000
Message-id: <20000929221822.B28676@rcfile.org>
References: <20000929160508.A27579@rcfile.org> <20000929163848.A9193@disaster.jaj.com> <20000929170720.A27917@rcfile.org> <20000929212013.A9806@disaster.jaj.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-09/msg00712.html

On 29 Sep 2000 at 21:20 (-0400), Phil Edwards wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 05:07:20PM -0400, brent@rcfile.org wrote:
| > On 29 Sep 2000 at 16:38 (-0400), Phil Edwards wrote:
| >
| > | 'make all' at the top level (or in the gcc subdir) will build everything just
| > | once.  If you know you have a completely working C compiler installed already
| > | to do the build, then that's usually good enough for most sub-projects
| > | (like C++-related things).  For stuff that affects the core C compiler,
| > | you should always do a full bootstrap for the additional testing.
| >
| > has the 'make all' worked as desired/expected for you?
|
| Absolutely.  It picks up any compiler changes from others, and eventually
| descends to build libstdc++-v3, which is what I'm usually messing with.

cool. that's three affirmations that bootstrap is not needed
to test frontend modifications. that equates to about 20 times as
many experiments I can make over the course my vacation. hopefully
I can fix a buglet and learn (a bit about) how this magic compiler
works, if not I can atleast slap together the beginnings of a
"Hacking gcc for dumm*es" guide :)

thanks.
  brent

-- 
All opinions expressed are My own, unless otherwise attributed. In
presenting facts, I expressly reserve the right to be Wrong. Portions
of this message authored by Me are subject to the Free Thought License.