Install GCC guide

Install GCC guide

[joris]

Hi,

The installing GCC guide contains a paragraph that says 'If you also 
intend to build binutils (either to upgrade an existing installation or 
for use in place of the corresponding tools of your OS), unpack the 
binutils distribution either in the same directory or a separate one.'

Bu according to bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80719, 
unpacking a binutils source release within a GCC source release may not 
be a good idea.

Problem with building GCC is that if you do not, you end up with a 
missing libiberty.

So to summarize, the install guide does not work as-is

Joris

Re: Install GCC guide

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 12 May 2017 at 14:03, joris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The installing GCC guide contains a paragraph that says 'If you also intend
> to build binutils (either to upgrade an existing installation or for use in
> place of the corresponding tools of your OS), unpack the binutils
> distribution either in the same directory or a separate one.'
>
> Bu according to bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80719,
> unpacking a binutils source release within a GCC source release may not be a
> good idea.
>
> Problem with building GCC is that if you do not, you end up with a missing
> libiberty.

I can't parse this sentence. If you do not what? Build binutils at the
same time?

It's certainly not true that you get a missing libiberty if you don't
build binutils at the same time.

Re: Install GCC guide

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 12 May 2017 at 15:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 14:03, joris wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The installing GCC guide contains a paragraph that says 'If you also intend
>> to build binutils (either to upgrade an existing installation or for use in
>> place of the corresponding tools of your OS), unpack the binutils
>> distribution either in the same directory or a separate one.'
>>
>> Bu according to bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80719,
>> unpacking a binutils source release within a GCC source release may not be a
>> good idea.
>>
>> Problem with building GCC is that if you do not, you end up with a missing
>> libiberty.
>
> I can't parse this sentence. If you do not what? Build binutils at the
> same time?
>
> It's certainly not true that you get a missing libiberty if you don't
> build binutils at the same time.

Please reply to the mailing list not just to me, I'm not interested in
having a private conversation.

What Jakub said is that you need to ensure the common parts of the two
trees are the same (sometimes that is true if you use a gcc release
and a binutils release that are very similar ages, but more often it
doesn't).

If you don't want to have to do that, just build them separately.

We could update https://gcc.gnu.org/install/download.html to clarify
this, as I agree it doesn't mention the caveats.

Re: Install GCC guide

[joris]

Hi,

I redid the build without touching binutils ( is installed on the 
system), then it works OK. The issue is when you follow the install 
guide's suggestion to unpack binutils within the source tree.

So indeed the issue is with the doc.

Once you start moving dirs from binutils to gcc tree and configure, 
things go wrong, and keep going wrong if you try to undo.

Building binutils on its own, separately works ok as well.

Joris

On 13/05/17 00:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 14:03, joris wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The installing GCC guide contains a paragraph that says 'If you also intend
>> to build binutils (either to upgrade an existing installation or for use in
>> place of the corresponding tools of your OS), unpack the binutils
>> distribution either in the same directory or a separate one.'
>>
>> Bu according to bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80719,
>> unpacking a binutils source release within a GCC source release may not be a
>> good idea.
>>
>> Problem with building GCC is that if you do not, you end up with a missing
>> libiberty.
> I can't parse this sentence. If you do not what? Build binutils at the
> same time?
>
> It's certainly not true that you get a missing libiberty if you don't
> build binutils at the same time.