Dan Nicholson wrote: > Manuel brought up a recent regression shown by ICA in cc1 and cc1plus.
<snip> > Then I remembered one other thing Greg recently tweaked for more purity. > > http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2006-December/000967.html > > One of the things that currently doesn't happen in the chroot > toolchain adjustment for LFS is making gcc prefer the new headers in > /usr/include. If you add '-v' to the sanity check output, you'll see > that it's still looking in /tools/include. Regardless of whether it fixes the ICA regression or not, this tweak should be considered for LFS because it fixes an outright bug in the build method. > Now I think I see the issue. We don't apply the glibc upstream patch > in Ch. 5. This patch touches two headers that may be included into > built sources: features.h and libio.h. That'd be it for sure. I wondered why I wasn't seeing the regression :-) If you keep the completed gcc build dirs, then diff them, it might give some more clues (not sure whether jhalfs allows you to keep build dirs). Whatever the case, IMHO it's a mistake to apply such a massive patch in only 1 phase. > More info as it arrives. Good detective work :-) Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
