Bootstrapping GCC

Ken Moffat ken at
Sat Sep 29 17:23:10 PDT 2007

On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 07:01:27PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> If we are able to bootstrap GCC pass2, then we know we're golden. The 
> libc is usable enough to create a solid set of tools, and the new 
> compiler is built according to the upstream default and is solid enough 
> to build our final libc. Also, we've relied upon the host system setup 
> even less than we have up to now.
> We could do that as well, but part of me likes knowing that, at least 
> once, we have built a compiler generally in the way intended by 
> upstream, and we know that the temporary toolchain is solid enough for 
> gcc to recreate itself.
 I've long-since lost any lingering belief that 'upstream' _always_
knows what is best, but my initial thought is that knowing the
toolchain lets gcc recreate itself is a good thing.  But, I wonder
if it is ever likely to fail at pass 2 without general failures in
the next compile (i.e. does bootstrapping of itself highlight errors
more quickly ?)

 For now, we lack data about how often bootstrapping pass 2 will fail
(in other words, what sort of user errors and mismatched toolchain
versions can cause it). There is also the argument that 'make
bootstrap' is educational and so we should do it somewhere.  On that
basis, I support moving the bootstrap to pass 2.

das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list