On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > (Don’t Cc: me please, I read the debian-68k@ list.) > > Finn Thain dixit: > > >Hopefully, all those targets available to the etch-m68k compilers. Not > >sure whether fidoa was one of those? > > Hrm. As I wrote in <pine.bsm.4.64l.1004191952070.24...@herc.mirbsd.org> > it didn’t build (due to inline asm in glibc (2.7) headers).
By "etch-m68k compilers", I meant gcc 4.1.1-21. It looks like gcc-4.1.1-21 doesn't offer fido support, so I would disable fido support if that will fix the build. > >You'll see that I've requested that the patch "m68k-allow-gnu99.diff" > >be dropped from both 4.4 and 4.5. I hope this does not harm your work > >on gcc? 4.3 at least, won't be affected. > > I don’t think so, but it might affect systems with libc-2.7 still > installed I've never heard of any. Etch-m68k only offered glibc-2.3.6. I think glibc-2.5 may have been used on some buildd machines. If 2.5 can't be used with gcc-4.4 (without "m68k-allow-gnu99.diff") then why not simply abandon glibc 2.5, and replace it with cross-compiled glibc-2.11 packages? > (although I can probably circumvent that by passing non-default CFLAGS > everywhere). Unless you have a newer (e)glibc, even when without TLS > support, to get rid of that? A "lenny-m68k" doesn't really interest me. Likewise glibc newer than 2.3.6 but lacking NPTL (i.e. 2.7). A lot of work went into eglibc for m68k around 2.10 and later. I think we should focus on squeeze/sid and leave linuxthreads behind. Finn > > bye, > //mirabilos >
