Re: [lfs-support] 5.7 glibc sanity check question
On 07/11/2018 12:59 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: On 07/11/2018 10:28 AM, Alan Corey wrote: OK, it fails. And when I do readelf -l a.out and look at the output manually the interpreter line is just [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1] No /tools in there. How does it get there? I configured glib with the little script #!/bin/bash ../configure --prefix=/tools --host=$LFS_TGT \ --build=$(../scripts/config.guess) --enable-kernel=3.2 \ --with-headers=/tools/include libc_cv_forced_unwind=yes \ libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes Built it all, it failed the sanity test and I was trying to figure out why. I thought --prefix only changed where something was installed, I didn't know it got embedded. Maybe this is like argv[0]. This is referencing ld-linux on the host, not the one in /tools. Are you building as user lfs? Is $LFS_TGT defined properly? -- Bruce Yes and yes. up64$ whoami lfs up64$ env LC_ALL=POSIX OLDPWD=/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.27 LFS=/mnt/lfs NO_AT_BRIDGE=1 PWD=/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.27/build HOME=/home/lfs LFS_TGT=aarch64-lfs-linux-gnu TERM=rxvt-unicode-256color SHLVL=1 PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin PS1=\h\$ _=/usr/bin/env up64$ readelf -l a.out | grep interpreter [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1] -- --- Sent from my 64-bit Raspberry Pi -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] 5.7 glibc sanity check question
On 07/11/2018 10:28 AM, Alan Corey wrote: OK, it fails. And when I do readelf -l a.out and look at the output manually the interpreter line is just [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1] No /tools in there. How does it get there? I configured glib with the little script #!/bin/bash ../configure --prefix=/tools --host=$LFS_TGT \ --build=$(../scripts/config.guess) --enable-kernel=3.2 \ --with-headers=/tools/include libc_cv_forced_unwind=yes \ libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes Built it all, it failed the sanity test and I was trying to figure out why. I thought --prefix only changed where something was installed, I didn't know it got embedded. Maybe this is like argv[0]. This is referencing ld-linux on the host, not the one in /tools. Are you building as user lfs? Is $LFS_TGT defined properly? -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] 5.7 glibc sanity check question
On 11.7.2018. 17:28, Alan Corey wrote: OK, it fails. And when I do readelf -l a.out and look at the output manually the interpreter line is just [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1] This is adjusted in gcc pass 1. Current sed that fixes this is made for x86/x86_64, and does cover mentioned architecture. You'll need to adjust it yourself. No /tools in there. How does it get there? I configured glib with the little script #!/bin/bash ../configure --prefix=/tools --host=$LFS_TGT \ --build=$(../scripts/config.guess) --enable-kernel=3.2 \ --with-headers=/tools/include libc_cv_forced_unwind=yes \ libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes Built it all, it failed the sanity test and I was trying to figure out why. I thought --prefix only changed where something was installed, I didn't know it got embedded. Maybe this is like argv[0]. This is referencing ld-linux on the host, not the one in /tools. And my /tools symlink is right, I think: up64$ ls -la / | grep tools lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root14 Jul 10 08:17 tools -> /mnt/lfs/tools I don't think this relects an error in this glibc, more like something before. But wait a minute, my cfg script may run with a different environment. Don't think so though. Tricks I've learned from a lot of unsuccessful builds in general: Put the configure stuff in a little script so you can edit and run again if needed. Redirect the output of configure or make into a file and probably do a tail -f on that to watch. I have the configure output. Running make over again. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] 5.7 glibc sanity check question
OK, it fails. And when I do readelf -l a.out and look at the output manually the interpreter line is just [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1] No /tools in there. How does it get there? I configured glib with the little script #!/bin/bash ../configure --prefix=/tools --host=$LFS_TGT \ --build=$(../scripts/config.guess) --enable-kernel=3.2 \ --with-headers=/tools/include libc_cv_forced_unwind=yes \ libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes Built it all, it failed the sanity test and I was trying to figure out why. I thought --prefix only changed where something was installed, I didn't know it got embedded. Maybe this is like argv[0]. This is referencing ld-linux on the host, not the one in /tools. And my /tools symlink is right, I think: up64$ ls -la / | grep tools lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root14 Jul 10 08:17 tools -> /mnt/lfs/tools I don't think this relects an error in this glibc, more like something before. But wait a minute, my cfg script may run with a different environment. Don't think so though. Tricks I've learned from a lot of unsuccessful builds in general: Put the configure stuff in a little script so you can edit and run again if needed. Redirect the output of configure or make into a file and probably do a tail -f on that to watch. I have the configure output. Running make over again. -- - No, I won't call it "climate change", do you have a "reality problem"? - AB1JX Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
