On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:59:19 +0100, Andrew Benton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:55:21 -0600 > Matthew Burgess <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I guess the first question is, has anyone else seen this issue? > > No, I don't get that. It could be because I've been using eglibc for a > while. It could also be an architecture thing; I'm using x86_64, are > you using i686?
I suspect it's because of the arch differences, I'm on i686 here. > However, when I try to compile it the build fails like so: <snip> > /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.21 internal error, aborting at > ../../binutils-2.21/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c line 2764 in > elf64_x86_64_relocate_section > > /usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug. > > Apparently this is a bug in binutils' ld that is fixed in > binutils-2.21.51. I don't see this error, again presumably because of being on i686. > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12366 > > I have tested binutils-2.21.51 and glibc-2.14 compiles fine with it. > Current firefox from mercurial also compiles with binutils-2.21.51. > With binutils-2.21 current firefox fails to build in a similar way to > glibc-2.14. I have built my current system with binutils-2.21.51 it > seems to work fine and solves those 2 compile failures for me. So, it looks like if I just commit my change to upgrade Glibc this is going to break x86_64 users. I'd prefer for us not to use HJL's binutils for the reasons already outlined at [0] but we may have to consider it in this case. Thanks, Matt. [0] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html#hjl-binutilsDo you have a pointer to the binutils-2.21.51 Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
