On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Is my assumption, that a "combined build" is most easy, a wrong
>> one and should I try a non-combined build?
>> Are there some docs about?
>
> I guess I just said this, but when using releases I would advise a
> non-combined build.
>
>> For the documentation, especially extraction of bintuils, would
>> it be a good idea to submit a bug report about the too brief
>> installation instructions?
>
> Sure. Or send a patch. Thanks.
I don't think I'm competent enough but maybe I can send some proposal...
>> But there is a way to build a recent released gcc toolchain,
>> isn't there?
>
> Of course. Just don't use a combined build.
I tried to express this in this form:
------------------------------------------------------------------->8=======
--- gcc-4.6.0.dist/gcc/doc/install.texi 2011-03-21 13:13:26.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc-4.6.0/gcc/doc/install.texi 2011-04-28 15:59:53.000000000 +0200
@@ -553,7 +553,17 @@
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. In the latter case, add symbolic links to any
+a separate one. Using the same directory is not recommended for
+building release tarballs of gcc, but if you obtained the sources
+via SVN, it is reliable. Unpacking into the same directory means
+that the contents of the (versionized) directories of binutils
+and gcc are in one and the same directory (with subdirectories
+like @file{gcc}, @file{binutils} and @file{gas}). Contents of the
+directories common to and shared by gcc and binutils
+(@file{include}, @file{libiberty} and @file{intl}) must be
+compatible, making combined builds using standard releases hard
+to get right. In case you are using separate directories, which
+is recommended, add symbolic links to any
components of the binutils you intend to build alongside the compiler
(@file{bfd}, @file{binutils}, @file{gas}, @file{gprof}, @file{ld},
@file{opcodes}, @dots{}) to the directory containing the GCC sources.
=======8<-------------------------------------------------------------------
in the hope it could may be a base for an improvement?
What should I do now, mail to gcc-patches?
oki,
Steffen
Attachment:
install.texi-gcc-4.6.0.diff
Description: Binary data
