* Re: Build of gcc-3.1.1<Ada, C> for Red Hat 7.1
2002-08-12 9:27 ` Janis Johnson
@ 2002-08-13 8:37 ` Michael S. Zick
2002-08-13 8:44 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2002-08-13 8:42 ` GCC Install Instructions Michael S. Zick
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Zick @ 2002-08-13 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Janis Johnson; +Cc: gcc
In reference to:
On Monday 12 August 2002 11:28 am, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 12:32:30AM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> > 10) The gcc/INSTALL files could use some help - will post something
> > later.
>
> Good, thanks. The source for these is gcc/doc/install.texi.
>
Text at: < http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00658.html >
While the week's worth of "Cockpit Errors" I made at the keyboard still fresh
in my mind...
Thread start at: < http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00457.html >
I am considering a two step process:
1) Clarify those install directions for GCC in a manner workable both with
current GCC requirements and the current workings of other GNU-projects.
<panic>
2) Do a major re-think of those makefiles. <panic> Actually, what I have in
mind will re-use about 99.44% of the existing makefiles </panic>. The
process will remain the same, only the internal structure will become more
general.
When I speak here of "makefiles" I naturally, also, mean those files the
user's Makefile(s) is/are built from.
Item (2) above is at the "Comment and Reaction" stage for now.
Dealing with item (1) first - a description of the situation as I found it
from the prospective of a "First Time Builder" of GCC and then a description
of the sort of "Recommendation(s)" I would like to include in the "Install"
directions.
Historically (and currently for some GNU projects) where the "<release_name>"
is the highest level directory in the tar-ball downloaded...
Structure A: (where installation instructions say enter: "./configure")
<some_where>/<release_name>/configure.sh
I.E: Building in the <release_name> directory.
Structure B: (where installation instructions say enter: "../configure")
<some_where>/<release_name>/configure.sh
<some_where>/<release_name>/<build_directory>
Structure C: (where installation instructions say enter:
"<src_dir>/configure")
<some_where>/<release_name>/configure.sh
<some_where>/<optionally_ a_built_for_directory>/<build_directory>
Currently, (as of the gcc-3.1.1 makefiles, when building (at least) <c,
Ada>), directory structure (C) is REQUIRED.
(Which means that a "VPATH" capable version of "make" is also REQUIRED.)
Note: If you have a "VPATH" capable version of "make" (at least if you have a
"VPATH" capable version of GNU-make) then other GNU-projects whose
"makefiles" are written for either structure (A) or structure (B) but also
set "VPATH" also work for structure (C).
- * - * - * -
What I would like to include in the installation instructions is a:
"Recommended Directory Structure" which would look like this -
Having installed your sources from the release tar-balls, your source
directory structure will look like:
<some_where>/<release_name>
where "<release_name>" is created by the (FSF) tar-ball you just used.
Now create a directory for building the software into which is parallel to
(and dis-joint from) the <release_name> directory. You may use a single
directory structure for the build, or multiple directories if doing multiple
builds.
That is, make your build directory structure look like:
<some_where>/<build_directory>
OR:
<some_where>/<any_number_of_build_descriptive_directory(ies)/<build_directory>
Make that build directory your current directory and enter (the correct
expansion of): <some_where>/<release_name>/configure
- * - * - * -
Using the building of gcc-3.1.1 as an example, this would give a "source
directory" structure like so (when combined with the other efforts being
undertaken to have a "Software Requirements" page(s)):
<some_where>/<gcc-3.1.1>
If the system doesn't have a usable "make":
<some_where>/<make-3.79.1>
If user wants documentation built and system doesn't have a usable "makeinfo":
<some_where>/<texinfo-4.1>
If user wants a new set of "binutils" tools (perhaps to support the
"--new-c++-abi" option):
<some_where>/<binutils-2.13>
If user wants a new gdb:
<some_where>/<gdb-5.2.1>
And so on, and so forth; for whatever the user needs to support a native
build, cross build (double-cross) or a Canadian cross build (triple-cross).
All the while maintaining the ability to start the build using one or more
"any ol' compiler(s)" and set(s) of tools.
Where all of the "<some_where>" portions of the source directory paths may be
the same, relative, or different, absolute paths as long as they meet the
"dis-joint" requirement.
- * - * - * - * -
Moving forward, to "pre-think" item (2)...
Retain the historical sequence of: "configure", "make bootstrap", ["make
check"], "make install"...
Add the targets for "make prep" and "make prep-check" - perhaps also add a
single new target "make easy".
"make prep":
Tries to Grok the system's directory structure for the sources of everything
needed, beginning with the recommended directory structure. Writes a "fill
in the blanks" script file WITH DIRECTIONS for anything it can't resolve a
single path too (multiple versions of a needed source, versions on a remote
system that isn't mounted when the command is run, etc.)
[Avoiding the case where messges like: "Can't make the documents because your
makeinfo is too old" that fly by among a zillion other messages.]
After the user updates the generated file:
"make prep-check":
Will simply (??) check for a usable source(s) directory structure based on
the user's updates to the path information of (above) generated file.
Ending with directions to the user to enter either:
"./configure" or "./configure --site=<generated_and_edited_filename>"
At which point the "First Time Builder" joins the path taken by the "Old
Pros".
Comments? Suggestions?
Mike
PS: I don't think the changes to the install instructions will take a
copyright assignment - those are trival clarifications. The changes to all
of the "makefile" stuff are fairly extensive, so I need that link to the
copyright assignment form please.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* GCC Install Instructions
2002-08-12 9:27 ` Janis Johnson
2002-08-13 8:37 ` Michael S. Zick
@ 2002-08-13 8:42 ` Michael S. Zick
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Zick @ 2002-08-13 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Sorry for the duplicate post - I forgot to change the subject and address
lines.
In reference to:
On Monday 12 August 2002 11:28 am, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 12:32:30AM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> > 10) The gcc/INSTALL files could use some help - will post something
> > later.
>
> Good, thanks. The source for these is gcc/doc/install.texi.
>
Text at: < http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00658.html >
While the week's worth of "Cockpit Errors" I made at the keyboard still fresh
in my mind...
Thread start at: < http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00457.html >
I am considering a two step process:
1) Clarify those install directions for GCC in a manner workable both with
current GCC requirements and the current workings of other GNU-projects.
<panic>
2) Do a major re-think of those makefiles. <panic> Actually, what I have in
mind will re-use about 99.44% of the existing makefiles </panic>. The
process will remain the same, only the internal structure will become more
general.
When I speak here of "makefiles" I naturally, also, mean those files the
user's Makefile(s) is/are built from.
Item (2) above is at the "Comment and Reaction" stage for now.
Dealing with item (1) first - a description of the situation as I found it
from the prospective of a "First Time Builder" of GCC and then a description
of the sort of "Recommendation(s)" I would like to include in the "Install"
directions.
Historically (and currently for some GNU projects) where the "<release_name>"
is the highest level directory in the tar-ball downloaded...
Structure A: (where installation instructions say enter: "./configure")
<some_where>/<release_name>/configure.sh
I.E: Building in the <release_name> directory.
Structure B: (where installation instructions say enter: "../configure")
<some_where>/<release_name>/configure.sh
<some_where>/<release_name>/<build_directory>
Structure C: (where installation instructions say enter:
"<src_dir>/configure")
<some_where>/<release_name>/configure.sh
<some_where>/<optionally_ a_built_for_directory>/<build_directory>
Currently, (as of the gcc-3.1.1 makefiles, when building (at least) <c,
Ada>), directory structure (C) is REQUIRED.
(Which means that a "VPATH" capable version of "make" is also REQUIRED.)
Note: If you have a "VPATH" capable version of "make" (at least if you have a
"VPATH" capable version of GNU-make) then other GNU-projects whose
"makefiles" are written for either structure (A) or structure (B) but also
set "VPATH" also work for structure (C).
- * - * - * -
What I would like to include in the installation instructions is a:
"Recommended Directory Structure" which would look like this -
Having installed your sources from the release tar-balls, your source
directory structure will look like:
<some_where>/<release_name>
where "<release_name>" is created by the (FSF) tar-ball you just used.
Now create a directory for building the software into which is parallel to
(and dis-joint from) the <release_name> directory. You may use a single
directory structure for the build, or multiple directories if doing multiple
builds.
That is, make your build directory structure look like:
<some_where>/<build_directory>
OR:
<some_where>/<any_number_of_build_descriptive_directory(ies)/<build_directory>
Make that build directory your current directory and enter (the correct
expansion of): <some_where>/<release_name>/configure
- * - * - * -
Using the building of gcc-3.1.1 as an example, this would give a "source
directory" structure like so (when combined with the other efforts being
undertaken to have a "Software Requirements" page(s)):
<some_where>/<gcc-3.1.1>
If the system doesn't have a usable "make":
<some_where>/<make-3.79.1>
If user wants documentation built and system doesn't have a usable "makeinfo":
<some_where>/<texinfo-4.1>
If user wants a new set of "binutils" tools (perhaps to support the
"--new-c++-abi" option):
<some_where>/<binutils-2.13>
If user wants a new gdb:
<some_where>/<gdb-5.2.1>
And so on, and so forth; for whatever the user needs to support a native
build, cross build (double-cross) or a Canadian cross build (triple-cross).
All the while maintaining the ability to start the build using one or more
"any ol' compiler(s)" and set(s) of tools.
Where all of the "<some_where>" portions of the source directory paths may be
the same, relative, or different, absolute paths as long as they meet the
"dis-joint" requirement.
- * - * - * - * -
Moving forward, to "pre-think" item (2)...
Retain the historical sequence of: "configure", "make bootstrap", ["make
check"], "make install"...
Add the targets for "make prep" and "make prep-check" - perhaps also add a
single new target "make easy".
"make prep":
Tries to Grok the system's directory structure for the sources of everything
needed, beginning with the recommended directory structure. Writes a "fill
in the blanks" script file WITH DIRECTIONS for anything it can't resolve a
single path too (multiple versions of a needed source, versions on a remote
system that isn't mounted when the command is run, etc.)
[Avoiding the case where messges like: "Can't make the documents because your
makeinfo is too old" that fly by among a zillion other messages.]
After the user updates the generated file:
"make prep-check":
Will simply (??) check for a usable source(s) directory structure based on
the user's updates to the path information of (above) generated file.
Ending with directions to the user to enter either:
"./configure" or "./configure --site=<generated_and_edited_filename>"
At which point the "First Time Builder" joins the path taken by the "Old
Pros".
Comments? Suggestions?
Mike
PS: I don't think the changes to the install instructions will take a
copyright assignment - those are trival clarifications. The changes to all
of the "makefile" stuff are fairly extensive, so I need that link to the
copyright assignment form please.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread