building ghc once or twice?

[Ben Gamari]

Jens Petersen <juhpetersen at gmail.com> writes:

> I have been packaging ghc for a long time...
>
> In older times I think it was recommended to first do a (quick) build
> of a new version of ghc (with the previous version) and then to do a
> (perf) rebuild of the new version against itself.
> In fact I am still building ghc this way for Fedora: though it seems
> like this is overhead nowadays...?
> (I think one major reason was to get stable ABI hashes for the core
> library packages.)
>
> These days should I just do a single default or perf build of a new
> ghc version against a previous stable release, or does it still make
> sense to continue to build in two steps like I have been doing?
> Any pros or cons?
>
Indeed; GHC's build system already performs a two-stage bootstrapping so
it shouldn't be necessary to do multiple builds yourself.

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20180502/34355a1d/attachment.sig>