On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I tried to express this in this form: >> --- 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 >> +via SVN, it is reliable. Unpacking into the same directory means >> +that the contents of the (versionized) directories of binutils > > versionized? Thank you, "versioned" seems to be the word I was looking for. >> What should I do now, mail to gcc-patches? > > Yes, patches should always be sent there for discussion and review. ok, so I Cc:. * http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html: > Legal Prerequisites None ("Small changes can be accepted without a copyright disclaimer or a copyright assignment on file") > A description of the problem/bug and how your patch addresses it. Users of release tarballs could get confused how to build binutils and gcc and accidently attempt an undesired "combined build". The patch adds some explaining words. > Testcases None. I don't know whether to add a doc test and how to do so. > ChangeLog 2011-05-02 Steffen Dettmer <steffen@xxxxxxx> * doc/install.texi (Downloading the Source): Recommended not to build binutils in combined mode when using release tarballs. (to be replaced this by a correct one if an improvement based on the proposal in form of my patch is considered for a commit) > Bootstrapping and testing This change was not tested at all. > The patch itself --- 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 2011-05-02 14:39:01.000000000 +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 (versioned) 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.
Attachment:
gcc-4_6_0_gcc_doc_install.texi.diff
Description: Binary data
