From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20393 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2002 16:07:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20314 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2002 16:07:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2002 16:07:08 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA20119; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:07:05 -0600 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:07:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200201111607.KAA20119@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@cygnus.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Subject: Re: Changing the C/C++ compiler for gdb testsuite runs Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 I built unified trees about once per week last summer. My experience: + they do solve Richard's original problem, which is: testing a gcc without installing it + once I sorted out my symlink script, I had no trouble with libiberty or include or other shared directories. And they are synced even tighter today. - it did bother me that I was not building the packages in the same way that they would be released. - I like to test with several different versions of gcc so it's better for me to build in separate trees anyways. Michael C