On 3/5/12 11:56 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > Sorry for being slow to respond, I've been busy :) > I remember reading that gcc bug last year when I first hit the problem. > I spent some time trying to implement the solutions proposed there but > none of them worked. Reading through it again now I noticed that many > of the people were using Ubuntu. My current system was first compiled > from an Ubuntu live cd so I wondered if that may have had an effect. So > I downloaded the Fedora 16 x86_64 iso, booted into it, fought my way > past the stupidly obstructive and annoying Gnome-3 and made my way to > exactly the same GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES error at exactly the same point in > the first pass of gcc. > > I copy and pasted the commands from the book. The only thing I'm doing > that is not in your new version of the book is that I run make -j4. But > it's binutils and gcc. They must be safe to run with multiple jobs. Oh, > hang on, I did use gcc-4.6.3 this time but it made no difference as far > as this error is concerned. Other than that, perhaps it's something > about my hardware? Or the filesystem (I use btrfs)? Maybe I should try > again with just ext2? > > Booting into the live cd and getting the same error has reassured me > it's not something peculiar to my build current system.
Yeah, as I've read more about it it seems like the culprit may be libtool, so effectively gcc's build system. What the exact trigger is that makes it different on various systems still isn't clear. So I'll concede that the patch is fine as a usable workaround. :) IIRC, part of it has already been implemented upstream, but I need to verify that. I'll add that back in on my working copy when I get a second. How did the build go otherwise? JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
