Greg Schafer wrote:
> Umm, you appear to have missed the point completely. Please re-read the
> info I pointed to. MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES needs to be *non-existent* to work
> around the surprising (buggy?) GCC behavior I'm talking about.
I didn't miss the point, I understood all of what you wrote. I just
chose to test it differently.
> Then again, I haven't tested x86_64 in a while so I might be talking out
> of my arse. Preferably on an Ubuntu64 host, please post the verbose output
> of gcc-pass2 so we can what is going on ie:
>
> echo 'main(){}' | gcc -xc -o /dev/null -v -
I don't have an Ubuntu host to work from, but I will share the results
that I can. Have to fire off another build, so it might be a little bit.
> Another point - To be honest, I don't see why any "pure64" patch is needed
> at all. That's what the symlinks are for. All the patch seems to do is
> diverge the `x86_64 --disable-multilib' build further away from x86 than
> is necessary.
Well, you may be right. But before I make any futher changes, I'd like
to get some feedback on this from others in the LFS community about it.
Greg, care to explain in more detail the {dis,}advantages of the
symlinks a bit more?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
