Michael Zintakis <michael.zintakis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 3. then use GCC 1 to build GCC 2 and its toolchain (single stage, > bootstrap disabled) which is for --host=x86_64 and target= either > powerpc or i586/i686 (depending on the scenario I would need either of > these architectures, but not both, hence this is one compiler with > different cross-tool chains depending on the need I have). For this I > guess I just need to run configure with the appropriate options > (including --disable-bootstrap) and then make to finish the job. Yes. You can not bootstrap this compiler. gcc will know that and so --disable-bootstrap will be the default. > 4. use GCC 2 to build GCC 3 which would form part of the target > software system allowing compilation of software for the target > architecture only. I am still unclear as to whether I need to (or > should!) use the 3-stage or single-stage path for this compiler. You must use the single-stage path here because no other path will work. You can not bootstrap a compiler which does not run on the build system. > True, but if I need a compiler able to build on host=x86_64 and > target=powerpc that's one (cross) compiler isn't it, I don't need to > run the build process twice for that, do I or have I got this wrong? Yes, that is one cross-compiler. >>> GCC No 2 (single-stage, no bootstrap?) would have to be also x86_64 >>> and have libraries and tools built for both arches (cross-compilation) >>> - >>> x86_64 and powerpc. >>> >> >> This is two compilers. Both have use x86_64 as the host and build >> environment, and use the appropriate target as the target environment. >> > So, if I want a cross compiler which is x86_64 and cross-compiles for > ppc is that one or two compilers (and chain tools) I need to build? I > am confused now! If I'm following you, you have one "GCC No 2 compiler" for the i586/i686 target, and you have one for the PPC target. I just wanted to make clear that you can't have a single compiler which targets all of i586/i686/PPC. >>> GCC No 3 would have to be powerpc only and have the libraries and >>> tools for that arch only. >>> >> >> Yes, I guess so, though I'm not sure what happened to the other target. >> > The two possible scenarios are > > x86_64 (GCC1) -> x86_64 (GCC2) -> powerpc (GCC3) or > x86_64 (GCC1) -> x86_64 (GCC2) -> i586/i686 (GCC3) > > So, I would need three compilers for the above, the second one (GCC2) > being the most tricky as it needs to be able to use the power of the > host system (x86_64) in order to build either powerpc or i586/i686 > code - all in chroot-ed environment. Well, at least that is my take on > it. You can't really describe these compilers using single names. I would say you have x86_64-native (GCC1) -> x86_64-x-powerpc (GCC2) -> powerpc-native (GCC3) x86_64-native (GCC1) -> x86_64-x-i586/i686 (GCC2) -> i586/i686-native (GCC3) >>> Is that correct? If so, what process needs to be followed for building >>> GCC No 3 - 3-stage bootstrap or a single-stage and bootstrap disabled? >>> >> >> For stage 3 build is x86_64 and host and target are both PPC or whatever. >> > I still don't understand? Should I enable bootstrap (and the 3-stage > build) when I run configure for GCC3 (which would only need to compile > code for the target architecture and nothing more, though it needs to > have the toolchain built for that architecture as well)? You can't bootstrap or 3-stage gcc3, because the compiler you are building can not run on the build system. Ian
