GCC 4.1 for 2.2?

Mark Rosenstand mark at borkware.net
Sat Mar 11 16:38:29 UTC 2006


On Saturday 11 March 2006 13:55, Mikhail Kolesnik wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:12:17 +0100
>
> Mark Rosenstand <mark at borkware.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 11 March 2006 12:35, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 10:02:11 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > > > FWIW, I have succesfully rebuilt (almost) all of my packages
> > > > with GCC 4.1. They're from the 2.2 branch, revision 861. All
> > > > were up-to-date before building, and the toolchain were first
> > > > rebuilt two times, just to be sure.
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > However, from your report (and the ChangeLog for 4.1) updating
> > > between releases sounds quite feasible, so if we manage to get
> > > out 2.2 soon, I'd prefer to keep 4.0.x, and update to 4.1.1 or
> > > 4.1.2 through ports once they're available.
> >
> > That sounds perfect!
>
> Except one thing: any "cruxer's complete guide on the rigth way
> of rebuilding toolchain" ?
> Any sort of double-compilation sounds heretic ))

Look at the bootstrap target of the Makefile :-)

In general when updating gcc for micro versions, it's enough to simply 
rebuild libtool. It's only if the ABI breaks it's necessary to rebuild 
your whole toolchain or even system.

> Yes, I think this is very important.
> Am I paranoid?

If you want to follow the book you'll have to jump down to single user 
mode, but these days it usually isn't that big of an issue and should 
IMO only be done when building the packages on the CD, or if you're 
paranoid :-)



More information about the CRUX mailing list