Re: GCC multi-version development layout
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-help <[email protected]> Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:34:08 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gcc.help |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAH6eHdROroUQz92fKMACuwGZ5F96nPSMy63PSH23MxEkKPsUWg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026, 23:30 Heime, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, April 19th, 2026 at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-help < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Apr 2026, 17:57 Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-help, <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2026-04-19 at 16:33 +0000, Heime via Gcc-help wrote: > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > When building GCC from a cloned Git source tree using separate > > > > directories (as recommended), the directory structure follows > > > > a clean separation of source, build artifacts, and final > > > > installation. > > > > > > > > With different version of gcc, how would be the typical layout > > > > for specific branches to make patch changes to different gcc > > > > versions with multiple builds and install? > > > > > > > The layout doesn't matter at all. Anything will work. > > > > I have a directory ~/src/gcc/gcc for the git repo, where I work on trunk > > and then directories ~/src/gcc/gcc-15 and ~/src/gcc/gcc-14 etc for each > > release branch, using git worktree. > > > > I install each version to ~/gcc/X where X is 16, 15, 14 etc. > > > > But it really doesn't matter, anything works. > > > > > > > See https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree. > > > > > > > This is definitely the best way to manage the repo, so that every release > > branch is just a worktree using the same repository metadata and config > > settings. > > Have been scrutinising the development timeline page > > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline > > The new GCC versioning scheme announced for GCC 5.1 is > not reliably described. For instance, a major version > number increases GCC X to GCC X+1 (no more GCC X.Y to > GCC X.Y+1). > > The stage number does not seem to be added as a version > (there is no GCC X.0.1 (for stage 1), GCC X.0.3 (for stage 3)), > and so on. That's correct. > > It would help if the page got updated with improved descriptions. > I don't see a problem with it, what improvement are you suggesting? > > > > > > >