On 3/14/12 7:20 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 23:11 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> With the full gcc-4.6.3 tarball I get the same results as everybody
>
> Wonderful! I'll sleep easier tonight now :-) I'm glad this has finally
> been solved.
Nice! Glad we got that one nailed d
On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 23:11 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> With the full gcc-4.6.3 tarball I get the same results as everybody
Wonderful! I'll sleep easier tonight now :-) I'm glad this has finally
been solved.
> The book is still wrong by the way, it
> still has --disable-target-zlib, which th
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:05:37 +
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> I have libgfortran, libgo, libffi, libjava, libobjc in the source dir!
> Could it be that
> since you do not have those dirs, configure somehow "forgets" to
> disable target-zlib? Have you tried to build
> with the full source of gcc?
Le 14/03/2012 03:02, Andrew Benton a écrit :
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:37:30 +
> "Gilles Espinasse" wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Benton"
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:00 PM
>> Subject: Re:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:37:30 +
"Gilles Espinasse" wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Benton"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc cross patch in pass1
>
>
> > On Tue,
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Benton"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc cross patch in pass1
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:40:03 +
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > I'm having a problem with why this is happening.
&
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:06:33 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> What's your CPU?
andy@eccles:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 30
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 760 @ 2.80GHz
stepping: 5
microcod
On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:40:03 +
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> I'm having a problem with why this is happening.
>
> Me too...
>
>> The jhalfs vanilla LFS
>> svn build worked perfectly for me.
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/033-gcc
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:40:03 +
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm having a problem with why this is happening.
Me too...
> The jhalfs vanilla LFS
> svn build worked perfectly for me.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/033-gcc-pass1
Looking at your log I see:
*** This configuration is
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:02:47 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Here's my log:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1
>
> And the script that generated it:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1.sh
For me, the build fails whilst it's trying to configure the sec
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:02:47 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Here's my log:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1
>
> And the script that generated it:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1.sh
Here are mine:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~andy/033-gcc-pa
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:19:19 +
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> checking dynamic linker characteristics... configure: error: Link tests are
>> not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
>> make[2]: *** [configure-target-zlib] Error 1
>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/sources/g
On 3/13/12 1:21 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> ... and then I tried jhalfs with the vanilla LFS svn book and of
> course, I was wrong again, it failed in exactly the same way! Looking
> at the differences between the book and the scripts that work for me,
> the book has --disable-target-libiberty --dis
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:19:19 +
Andrew Benton wrote:
> checking dynamic linker characteristics... configure: error: Link tests are
> not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
> make[2]: *** [configure-target-zlib] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/sources/gcc-build'
> make[1]: *** [all]
On 3/13/12 12:27 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 13/03/2012 16:18, Andrew Benton a écrit :
>>
>> I was unwilling to use jhalfs as I dislike sudo. However, needs must,
>> and the result?
>> [...]
>> This was using Jeremy's sysroot.diff on top of the LFS xml files. I
>> think vanilla LFS will work fo
Le 13/03/2012 16:18, Andrew Benton a écrit :
>
> I was unwilling to use jhalfs as I dislike sudo. However, needs must,
> and the result?
> [...]
> This was using Jeremy's sysroot.diff on top of the LFS xml files. I
> think vanilla LFS will work for me as it has the patch and
> --disable-target-zlib
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:47:24 +
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:24:27 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:47:18 +
> > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >> I'd like to get to the bottom of the issues you're seeing as they may
> >> point to problems in our toolcha
Le 13/03/2012 03:44, Jeremy Huntwork a écrit :
>
> I'm not sure what you're doing differently, but I can't replicate.
>
> JH
Maybe, what you could do is exchange your logs and diff them?
Or send it both to me, and I'll try to diff them sometime today.
This is useful only if you have not used make -
On 3/12/12 11:14 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Fedora-16-x86_64-Live-Desktop.iso
>
> FWIW I can do you sysroot method if I patch gcc with the cross_compile
> patch and add these options to configure:
>--without-ppl --without-cloog \
>--without-target-libiberty --without-target-zlib
>
> I'm not
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:17:54 +
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> I've run binutils/gcc-pass1 following Jeremy's patch, with gcc-4.6.3,
> so without --disable-target-*.
>
> It compiles. zlib is compiled in the gcc-build/zlib directory, with the
> host toolchain, then linked to gcc after building gcc.
Le 12/03/2012 15:07, Andrew Benton a écrit :
> The --disable-target-zlib and --disable-target-libiberty patch is what
> we're discussing here. Jeremy says he can compile without it.
>
> Andy
I've run binutils/gcc-pass1 following Jeremy's patch, with gcc-4.6.3,
so without --disable-target-*.
It com
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:47:18 +
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:36:15 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > The book fails for me installing glibc, I
> > have to add libc_cv_ctors_header=yes to glibc's configure options. But
> > you knew that, it was you who suggested that solution
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:47:21 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 3/12/12 7:24 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > I mainly use my current LFS install, I get the same errors if I use a
> > Fedora or Ubuntu live CD.
>
> Which version specifically? If I get a chance, I'll download an iso and
> fire up a vi
Le 12/03/2012 15:07, Andrew Benton a écrit :
> The --disable-target-zlib and --disable-target-libiberty patch is what
> we're discussing here. Jeremy says he can compile without it.
>
> Andy
I can compile without it too. But I do not have the logs anymore.
I looked at logs obtained with the patch.
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:47:51 +
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> OK, sorry,
> I use --disable-target-zlib. Anyway : any library will be supposed to
> run on the target,
> so be compiled with xgcc. As an exception, I think libiberty, if not
> disabled, is compiled
> twice: once to run on the host and
Le 12/03/2012 14:16, Andrew Benton a écrit :
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:47:16 +
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> Yes, when you are cross compiling you (typically) can't bootstrap, so
>> they disable the bootstrap if it's determined you are building a cross
>> compiler. So where we would normally ne
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:47:16 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Yes, when you are cross compiling you (typically) can't bootstrap, so
> they disable the bootstrap if it's determined you are building a cross
> compiler. So where we would normally need the --disable-bootstrap
> switch, we don't here
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:24:27 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:47:18 +
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> I must admit to being really confused by your need for these
> workarounds.
>
> Me too. It makes me feel stupid.
I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself there, Andy!
On 3/12/12 7:24 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> I mainly use my current LFS install, I get the same errors if I use a
> Fedora or Ubuntu live CD.
Which version specifically? If I get a chance, I'll download an iso and
fire up a virtual machine to see if I can replicate.
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch
On 3/12/12 7:25 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 12/03/2012 10:18, Andrew Benton a écrit :
>> I've only just woken up so I've not had time to check, but looking at
>> the output above I'm pretty sure ${LFS_TGT} is set because I can see
>> lots of `x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu'. I also think it's doing a boo
Le 12/03/2012 10:18, Andrew Benton a écrit :
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:31:41 +
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> I'm still no nearer to figuring out why I get this error. Trying to
>>> follow Jeremy's new newlib build method fails for me
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:47:18 +
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I must admit to being really confused by your need for these workarounds.
Me too. It makes me feel stupid.
> Is this from your Fedora 16 Live CD? I'm building from a Fedora 16 host
> with all updates from 'yum update' on an x86_64 box
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:36:15 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:19:46 +
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>
>> OK, the paragraph above your output stated that it "fails for me at the
>> first pass of gcc", hence why I tested against the first pass of GCC.
>> That said, I *now* notice
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:19:46 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
> OK, the paragraph above your output stated that it "fails for me at the
> first pass of gcc", hence why I tested against the first pass of GCC.
> That said, I *now* notice that paragraph also states your results are
> from testing JH's new
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:31:41 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > I'm still no nearer to figuring out why I get this error. Trying to
> > follow Jeremy's new newlib build method fails for me at the first pass
> > of gcc:
> > checking for st
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:49 +
>> Matt Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> Andy hit issues that were discussed in the thread starting at
>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2011-March/064617.html
>>>
>>> When
On Mar 11, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 00:11 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> I get the same error if I use scripts or if I copy and paste the
>> commands from the book. It is a bootstrapped build of gcc, and it fails
>> during the second or third pass (notice ho
On Mar 11, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:54:44 +
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:49 +
>>> Matt Burgess wrote:
>>>
Andy hit issues that were discussed in the threa
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 00:11 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> I get the same error if I use scripts or if I copy and paste the
> commands from the book. It is a bootstrapped build of gcc, and it fails
> during the second or third pass (notice how it's testing xgcc). Your
> output looks like the very f
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:54:44 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:49 +
> > Matt Burgess wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Andy hit issues that were discussed in the thread starting at
> > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pi
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:49 +
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> >
> > Andy hit issues that were discussed in the thread starting at
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2011-March/064617.html
> >
> > When I have a bit more
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:57:01 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 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 pat
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 noti
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:37:20 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The patch is good to have as a workaround, but I'd like to find out what
> the issue is that's causing this. I fear it's either a problem with your
> host's compiler or a bug in the GCC build system. Check out:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
On 3/1/12 7:39 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> If I go back to the patch it wouldn't even be trying to
> configure-target-zlib.
The patch is good to have as a workaround, but I'd like to find out what
the issue is that's causing this. I fear it's either a problem with your
host's compiler or a bug in
On 3/1/12 7:39 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> I'm still no nearer to figuring out why I get this error. Trying to
> follow Jeremy's new newlib build method fails for me at the first pass
> of gcc:
> checking for stdint.h... no
> checking for unistd.h... no
> checking for dlfcn.h... no
> checking for ob
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:49 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> Andy hit issues that were discussed in the thread starting at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2011-March/064617.html
>
> When I have a bit more time, I'll try to build again without the patch,
> and if others could a
On 2/25/12 2:40 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Andy hit issues that were discussed in the thread starting at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2011-March/064617.html
Thanks for digging up that thread, I was having trouble tracking it
down. I'll read it over too.
JH
-
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 13:28 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I believe the cross patch in gcc pass1 is unnecessary. It does hail from
> upstream where it seems they accepted the bit about having the option to
> disable target libiberty, if required, but I don't believe they accepted
>
Hello,
I believe the cross patch in gcc pass1 is unnecessary. It does hail from
upstream where it seems they accepted the bit about having the option to
disable target libiberty, if required, but I don't believe they accepted
the zlib part, see: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47836
50 matches
Mail list logo
