On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 July 2013 14:56, David Starner wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> GCC can detect at configure time that it will fail. It is clearly >>> a computable problem. It's a matter of someone doing it rather than >>> insisting that the world should change to suit them. >> >> GCC 4.8.1 will fail to compile on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu that has >> all the programs that Prerequisites in the Installation instructions >> lists. That I install some random package not needed to build C >> programs is not listed as a prerequisite in the documentation. > > It's not "some random package" it's the C library, and it is needed to > compile 32-bit C programs. > > The fact it's not listed as a prerequesite has already been pointed > out as a problem with the docs.
Although that is an improvement, it is still far away from solving the problem. I read all the arguments, it still looks wrong to me. > >> I don't >> regard objecting to that is a matter of the world should change to >> suit me, rather as GCC not compiling on a system that it lists as a >> primary platform and is one of the most common targets for it. (It, >> BTW, does not suffice to add --disable-multilibs.) > > What do you mean it does not suffice? Do you mean it's not a good > enough solution, or it doesn't actually solve the problem? If the > latter, did you try spelling it correctly, --disable-multilib > (singular)? See, this is also another trap (yep, it happened to me long ago on multiple occasions). > In any case, the point stands: someone needs to do the work, insisting > on it being done doesn't do it.
