Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:19:19 +0200 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>,
        DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: GCC porting questions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991114115207.17579C-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9911141313430.151212-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk



On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> 
> > Therefore I choosed to simulate bootstrapping by calling different parts
> > from bat file (each part is small enough not to crash under Win9X DPMI
> > server and that helped also to workaround absence of symbolic links).
> 
> What is the meaning of ``bootstrapping'' when we are talking about a 
> system that doesn't have any compiler but (a previous version of) GCC?

At first only C compiler is built with existing one
After that it's used to build all requested compilers
It's repeated once more with compiler that is got in previous step
A comparisson of last 2 builds is done (they have to be identical)
Finally libraries (libstdc++, etc) are built.
> 
> How is this ``boostrapping'' different from a simple build for DJGPP?
> 

Of course one can simply build gcc without bootstrapping.

> > 	Doing it under NT. At least when I last tried with LFN TSR from
> > 	Andrew Crabtree it didn't work. Maybe in future...
> 
> NT leaks descriptors as well, although slightly slower.  It also leaks 
> DOS memory, so after a while you get "Load error: no DOS memory".
> 
> Maybe Windows 2K?...  Yeah, right, keep dreaming...
> 

Andris