Greg Schafer wrote: > The most obvious difference is that the --as-needed thing highlighted a > blatant problem with the build method. We were just lucky it worked up to > that point. This current thing is not so clear cut. Another important > difference is that GCC and Binutils are *much* more tightly coupled than > any linker/libc scenario. That, and the fact the hash-style stuff was > promoted as being compatible with older setups. >
Thanks for the answer. > Bottom line is I'm yet to be convinced this "ld doesn't like host glibc" > thing is an issue for the build method as it appears to be an x86_64-only > corner case. We already know a patch will resolve your problem, and we > also know FSF binutils-2.18 is around the corner. > OK. However, I would like to see a simple and well-defined set of host requirements for a native build in the "DIY reference build" document, so that one knows where it is supposed to work and where it isn't. I.e., something that clearly judges the past --as-needed situation as a bug in the build method, the current "ld doesn't like host glibc" as a corner case, and "gcc fails to bootstrap in Lenny x86 multilib setup" and all cases starting from uclibc-based hosts as situations that are not going to be supported. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
