This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: configure.{in -> ac} rename (commit 35eafcc71b) broke in-tree binutils building of gcc
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jim Wilson <jim dot wilson at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:08:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: configure.{in -> ac} rename (commit 35eafcc71b) broke in-tree binutils building of gcc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55A4EEC202000078000907FE at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <55A540F9 dot 6020406 at linaro dot org>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jim Wilson <jim.wilson@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 02:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I was quite surprised for my gcc 4.9.3 build (using binutils 2.25 instead
>> of 2.24 as I had in use with 4.9.2) to fail in rather obscure ways.
>
> in-tree/combined-tree builds aren't recommended anymore, and hence
> aren't well maintained anymore. That is an anachronism from the old
> Cygnus days. I still find it useful to drop newlib into gcc so it can
> be built like the other gcc libs, but otherwise I wouldn't recommend
> combining anything.
Combined tree is useful when the latest binutils is needed by GCC.
--
H.J.