* quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
@ 2002-10-25 9:01 Phil Edwards
2002-10-25 13:28 ` DJ Delorie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2002-10-25 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Is there any particular reason why the addition *strap targets aren't
available from the top-level Makefile?
Or, same question put differently: running "cd gcc; make foostrap" doesn't
pick up the definitions of GCC_FLAGS_TO_PASS, doesn't run SET_LIB_PATH,
and so forth, that the top-level Makefile does for the bootstrap* targets.
Why doesn't this cause problems?
Phil
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-25 9:01 quickstrap, et al, at the top level? Phil Edwards
@ 2002-10-25 13:28 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-25 15:32 ` Phil Edwards
2002-10-26 1:11 ` Geoff Keating
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2002-10-25 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: phil; +Cc: gcc
> Is there any particular reason why the addition *strap targets aren't
> available from the top-level Makefile?
Other than "because there's a LOT of subdir-specific targets, and we
can't implement them all in the toplevel Makefile", I can't think of
any.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-25 13:28 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2002-10-25 15:32 ` Phil Edwards
2002-10-25 15:40 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-26 1:11 ` Geoff Keating
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2002-10-25 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:20:58AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > Is there any particular reason why the addition *strap targets aren't
> > available from the top-level Makefile?
>
> Other than "because there's a LOT of subdir-specific targets, and we
> can't implement them all in the toplevel Makefile", I can't think of
> any.
What would you think of the following two-line patch, then, adding the
other *strap targets? It lets me 1) use those targets with the correct
GCC_FLAGS_TO_PASS settings, and 2) continues to automatically do the
'make compare' step afterwards.
Changing this same rule to call 'make gnucompare' instead of 'make compare'
shaves a minute or so off the bootstrap time for me, but I won't submit
that patch. :-) Unfortunately, there's no other way to get to that target
from the top level.
Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/pme/Repositories/GCC/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -r1.11 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl 3 Oct 2002 19:06:15 -0000 1.11
+++ Makefile.tpl 25 Oct 2002 17:30:17 -0000
@@ -1242,8 +1242,8 @@
# In theory, on an SMP all those dependencies can be resolved
# in parallel.
#
-.PHONY: bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean
-bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean: all-bootstrap
+.PHONY: bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean bubblestrap quickstrap cleanstrap restrap
+bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean bubblestrap quickstrap cleanstrap restrap: all-bootstrap
@r=`${PWD}`; export r; \
s=`cd $(srcdir); ${PWD}`; export s; \
$(SET_LIB_PATH) \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-25 15:32 ` Phil Edwards
@ 2002-10-25 15:40 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-25 19:06 ` Phil Edwards
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2002-10-25 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: phil; +Cc: gcc
While I'm philosophically opposed to swamping the toplevel Makefile
with subdir-specific targets, this one seems to make sense. Go ahead
and post a complete patch (with CL) and I'll approve it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-25 15:40 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2002-10-25 19:06 ` Phil Edwards
2002-10-25 19:36 ` DJ Delorie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2002-10-25 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc, gcc-patches
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 02:07:29PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> While I'm philosophically opposed to swamping the toplevel Makefile
> with subdir-specific targets, this one seems to make sense. Go ahead
> and post a complete patch (with CL) and I'll approve it.
The formal patch is below. Tested on athlon_mp-pc-linux-gnu, mainline,
b-i-b, and 3.2, for what it's worth.
2002-10-25 Phil Edwards <pme@gcc.gnu.org>
* Makefile.tpl (bootstrap): Add bubblestrap, quickstrap, cleanstrap,
and restrap targets to this rule.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
Index: Makefile.tpl
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/Makefile.tpl,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -3 -p -r1.11 Makefile.tpl
--- Makefile.tpl 3 Oct 2002 19:06:15 -0000 1.11
+++ Makefile.tpl 25 Oct 2002 22:08:43 -0000
@@ -1242,8 +1242,8 @@ all-gcc:
# In theory, on an SMP all those dependencies can be resolved
# in parallel.
#
-.PHONY: bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean
-bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean: all-bootstrap
+.PHONY: bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean bubblestrap quickstrap cleanstrap restrap
+bootstrap bootstrap-lean bootstrap2 bootstrap2-lean bootstrap3 bootstrap3-lean bootstrap4 bootstrap4-lean bubblestrap quickstrap cleanstrap restrap: all-bootstrap
@r=`${PWD}`; export r; \
s=`cd $(srcdir); ${PWD}`; export s; \
$(SET_LIB_PATH) \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-25 19:06 ` Phil Edwards
@ 2002-10-25 19:36 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-25 22:09 ` Phil Edwards
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2002-10-25 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: phil; +Cc: gcc, gcc-patches
> 2002-10-25 Phil Edwards <pme@gcc.gnu.org>
>
> * Makefile.tpl (bootstrap): Add bubblestrap, quickstrap, cleanstrap,
> and restrap targets to this rule.
> * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
Ok. Please double-check the diff on Makefile.in before committing it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-25 19:36 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2002-10-25 22:09 ` Phil Edwards
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2002-10-25 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc, gcc-patches
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:28:05PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > 2002-10-25 Phil Edwards <pme@gcc.gnu.org>
> >
> > * Makefile.tpl (bootstrap): Add bubblestrap, quickstrap, cleanstrap,
> > and restrap targets to this rule.
> > * Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>
> Ok. Please double-check the diff on Makefile.in before committing it.
Identical to the diff on Makefile.tpl. Committed to mainline.
Phil
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-25 13:28 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-25 15:32 ` Phil Edwards
@ 2002-10-26 1:11 ` Geoff Keating
2002-10-26 5:59 ` DJ Delorie
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Geoff Keating @ 2002-10-26 1:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc
DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:
> > Is there any particular reason why the addition *strap targets aren't
> > available from the top-level Makefile?
>
> Other than "because there's a LOT of subdir-specific targets, and we
> can't implement them all in the toplevel Makefile", I can't think of
> any.
In the long run, we'd like to move all the bootstrap functionality to
the toplevel, which would fix a bunch of potential problems; in
particular, it'd be nice if libiberty was also built with the new
compiler.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-26 1:11 ` Geoff Keating
@ 2002-10-26 5:59 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-26 9:37 ` Geoff Keating
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2002-10-26 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: geoffk; +Cc: gcc
> In the long run, we'd like to move all the bootstrap functionality to
> the toplevel, which would fix a bunch of potential problems; in
> particular, it'd be nice if libiberty was also built with the new
> compiler.
OTOH, you could just do "make all install; make clean; make all install"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-26 5:59 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2002-10-26 9:37 ` Geoff Keating
2002-10-26 10:23 ` DJ Delorie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Geoff Keating @ 2002-10-26 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dj; +Cc: gcc
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:19:07 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> > In the long run, we'd like to move all the bootstrap functionality to
> > the toplevel, which would fix a bunch of potential problems; in
> > particular, it'd be nice if libiberty was also built with the new
> > compiler.
>
> OTOH, you could just do "make all install; make clean; make all install"
The point of doing a bootstrap is that you get to discover whether or
not the compiler is safe to install _before_ it gets installed...
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: quickstrap, et al, at the top level?
2002-10-26 9:37 ` Geoff Keating
@ 2002-10-26 10:23 ` DJ Delorie
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2002-10-26 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: geoffk; +Cc: gcc
> The point of doing a bootstrap is that you get to discover whether or
> not the compiler is safe to install _before_ it gets installed...
Obviously I don't install it in /usr. My trees usually have b1, i1,
b2, i2, b3 directories (i.e. I configure each build for a different
prefix, except the last which goes to /usr). I usually build more
than just gcc (gas, ld, etc) and want to bootstrap test those also.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-26 3:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-25 9:01 quickstrap, et al, at the top level? Phil Edwards
2002-10-25 13:28 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-25 15:32 ` Phil Edwards
2002-10-25 15:40 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-25 19:06 ` Phil Edwards
2002-10-25 19:36 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-25 22:09 ` Phil Edwards
2002-10-26 1:11 ` Geoff Keating
2002-10-26 5:59 ` DJ Delorie
2002-10-26 9:37 ` Geoff Keating
2002-10-26 10:23 ` DJ Delorie
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).