Hello, Dimitry. You wrote 18 мая 2013 г., 1:35:25: >> Do we need such mode? DA> Well, if you are not interested in having any compilers (or toolchain DA> components) in your final world, they should not be built, right? Yes, it is perfectly valid to build system without compiler at all, IMHO. I mean, do we need mode, when "some" tools is used for compilation, and compiler is not configured by hands (via new XCxx variables) and not build at cross-tools stage. As I already said, I will be glad to see DIFFERENT knobs to select stage-3-built (and later used) compiler (external, configured explicitly via XCxx variables OR clang from sources OR gcc from sources -- three variants, clang from sources by default, as it is now) and other set of knobs (current WITHOUT_CLANG and WITHOUT_GCC) to disable these compilers as parts of TARGET system, like WITHOUT_BIND and others WITHOUT_xxx. These two+ compilers are different ones! And now we haven't any way to control them separately. Or, really, we have half-backed control: we could say "don't build cross-compiler, use external one", but we have no way to say "build cross-compiler, but not target one". It annoys me. But I afraid, I don't understand out build system well enough to provide patches, sorry. BTW, there is no way not to build binutils, as "install -s" used on "installworld" stage needs "strip". >> Is current behavior (risky on, IMHO) Ok? DA> No, obviously not. If you build world with "old" system headers (for DA> example when building head on stable/9), there will be trouble. Exactly! -- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev_at_FreeBSD.org>Received on Fri May 17 2013 - 19:54:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:37 UTC