On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 03:28:39PM +0000, Jonathan Watt wrote: > Claudio Bley wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 07:54:00PM +0000, Jonathan Watt wrote: > > > >>./configure > >>make bootstrap > > > > > >Hm, according to the installation instructions it is not supported to build > >GCC in its source directory. Maybe you meant to run something like > >../gcc-src/configure by the configure line above or you were just lucky > >enough that the built succeeded. > > Sorry, that was slightly misleading. I did use a build directory. I just > meant I didn't use any options. OK, that's what I presumed. > >>Everything seems to have gone okay (at least it didn't terminate with an > >>error message). Am I correct in thinking that if I now do 'make > >>install', all the files - including library files for the standard C++ > >>library etc - will be installed below /usr/local? > > > > > >Yes. > > > > > >>What will the directories be? > > > > > >lib files into /usr/local/lib; gcc specific libs in /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib > >include files into /usr/local/include > > > >etc. > > > >Just do a 'make -n install' to see what would be done. > > That command gave me a flood of far, far too much information to > decipher. But I assume there are other directories, for example I assume > the binaries go in /usr/local/bin? Would you, or anyone else, know what > they are? > > >>I absolutely must not overwrite the gcc 2.96 files. > > > > > >Eventually, in the worst case you could alwys re-install the gcc-2.96 RPM > >files... > > Okay, that's reassuring. > > >If you're really paranoid about this you could just change permissions on > >the > >/usr/local directory and do "make install" with an unprivileged user. > > Wouldn't I also need to change the privileges on the other existing > directories that the install will need to write to, like > /usr/local/include? Another reasons for wanting to know about all such > directories. Yes, you'd had to, like 'chown -R user /usr/local/'. After installation just change it back to be owned by root. But, I just found out that you may just use 'make DESTDIR=path-to-rootdir install' as mentioned at http://gcc.gnu.org/install/finalinstall.html to have it install (temporarily) to a different location. > >The include directories are basically the same for both compilers except > >for > >the libstdc++ headers. You should not have to specify any option to gcc in > >order to let it find its specific headers or libraries. > > So gcc 2.96 uses /usr/local/include too? That doesn't seem to be the > case on my computer. How do the compilors tell which are their > (standard) headers and libraries? A file naming convention? I'm just > curious. Yes, gcc 2.96 should search /usr/local/include too because it's a standard system include directory. Generally, the /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. Try 'cat /dev/null | gcc -v -E -': ...] #include "..." search starts here: #include <...> search starts here: /usr/local/include /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.3/include /usr/include [...] GCC itself does not supply many headers and libraries. Instead it uses the C standard library of the system and other headers/libraries installed in the standard locations (/usr/{include,lib} and /usr/local/{include,lib}) by default. Have a look at http://gcc.gnu.org/install/finalinstall.html which gives a good overview where the various files are to be installed. Cheers. -- Claudio Bley ASCII ribbon campaign (") Debian GNU/Linux user - against HTML email X http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~bley/ & vCards / \
