doc: Update the status of build directory not fully separated
Checks
| Context |
Check |
Description |
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64 |
success
|
Testing passed
|
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_check--master-aarch64 |
success
|
Testing passed
|
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm |
success
|
Testing passed
|
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm |
success
|
Testing passed
|
Commit Message
Recently there are some people building GCC with srcdir == objdir and
the attempts just failed [1]. So stop to say "it should work". OTOH
objdir as a subdirectory of srcdir works (at least for LFS [2] and BLFS
[3]).
[1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2023-November/143068.html
[2]: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/12.0/chapter08/gcc.html
[3]: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/12.0/general/gcc.html
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/install.texi: Deem srcdir == objdir as broken, and objdir
as a subdirectory of srcdir is slightly better.
---
Ok for trunk?
gcc/doc/install.texi | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Comments
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:46 AM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site> wrote:
>
> Recently there are some people building GCC with srcdir == objdir and
> the attempts just failed [1]. So stop to say "it should work". OTOH
> objdir as a subdirectory of srcdir works (at least for LFS [2] and BLFS
> [3]).
>
> [1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2023-November/143068.html
> [2]: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/12.0/chapter08/gcc.html
> [3]: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/12.0/general/gcc.html
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * doc/install.texi: Deem srcdir == objdir as broken, and objdir
> as a subdirectory of srcdir is slightly better.
> ---
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/doc/install.texi | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
> index c1ccb8ba02d..0b43f3dce75 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/install.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi
> @@ -697,9 +697,9 @@ phases.
> First, we @strong{highly} recommend that GCC be built into a
> separate directory from the sources which does @strong{not} reside
> within the source tree. This is how we generally build GCC; building
> -where @var{srcdir} == @var{objdir} should still work, but doesn't
> -get extensive testing; building where @var{objdir} is a subdirectory
> -of @var{srcdir} is unsupported.
> +where @var{objdir} is a subdirectory of @var{srcdir} should still work,
> +but doesn't get extensive testing; building where @var{objdir} ==
> +@var{srcdir} won't work.
objdir as subdirectory of srcdir is perfectly fine (and tested). Maybe
... This is how we generally build GCC; building
where @var{srcdir} == @var{objdir} is fine, building
where @var{srcdir} == @var{objdir} is unsupported.
Richard.
>
> If you have previously built GCC in the same directory for a
> different target machine, do @samp{make distclean} to delete all files
> --
> 2.43.0
>
@@ -697,9 +697,9 @@ phases.
First, we @strong{highly} recommend that GCC be built into a
separate directory from the sources which does @strong{not} reside
within the source tree. This is how we generally build GCC; building
-where @var{srcdir} == @var{objdir} should still work, but doesn't
-get extensive testing; building where @var{objdir} is a subdirectory
-of @var{srcdir} is unsupported.
+where @var{objdir} is a subdirectory of @var{srcdir} should still work,
+but doesn't get extensive testing; building where @var{objdir} ==
+@var{srcdir} won't work.
If you have previously built GCC in the same directory for a
different target machine, do @samp{make distclean} to delete all files