Re: [heads-up] disabling "../configure --disable-bootstrap && make bootstrap"

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:

> >  I don't believe anyone else considers this important.
> 
> The history on this sort of thing is that people don't pay attention
> until it happens and then everybody starts yelling about bootstrap
> time increasing ...
> 
> >   - Build supporting libraries for the build system tools
> >   - Build supporting libraries for the host system tools
> >   - Build gcc
> >   - [NEW] Build libgcc
> >   - If stage < final stage, go back to building some of the host
> >     libraries
> >   - Build other target libraries
> > 
> > Do you mean something different by "bootstrapping just the compiler"?
> 
> The problem is that last step: it takes a LONG time to build libjava,
> for example.  If I make a change that I need to give a sanity check to,
> I want to compile GCC with it, but not all the other additional code: that's
> for a later state in the development/testing cycle.  Since building a stage
> of GCC is about three times faster than "other target libraries", if there's
> no way to suppress that, the time to do this test goes up by a factor of four.

Would you feel OK if there were a make target to do a bootstrap
without building the other target libraries?  The change from today's
bootstrap with --disable-bootstrap would be that it would build
libiberty, libcpp, and friends at each stage, rather than only once.

Ian