Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Does that not sound right?
It all sounds good and well but that's not the point. what you are proposing is exactly how typical cross compilation scenarios work. Cross compilation schemes, by definition, cannot bootstrap. Thus, a *HUGE* advantage of a native build method is the luxury of bootstrapping GCC. Consider that GCC-4.2 changed the default of `make' to perform a bootstrap. Why do you think this is so? Yes, we could try moving the bootstrap to pass2, but there are lingering doubts about its viability. Also consider that during a bootstrap, stage 1 is compiled by the host compiler with no optimization. There is good reason for this. Under the proposal, this aspect is lost which I suspect will make the build *less* robust. The GCC docs even say something like "when building a cross compiler, you should first build a native compiler" (or something to that effect). Hopefully you can see the point I'm trying to make (and please don't suggest we build GCC pass1 with no optimization or I'll scream! :-) The bottom line is we still no don't know the cause of the issue you are seeing. Until we understand all the issues, I'm very reluctant to majorly alter a build method which has held us in good stead for approx' 4 years. This problem is so far confined to hosts with 64-bit kernel running mostly 32-bit userland and it's possible the only sane solution for this scenario is cross compilation. It might be worth trying a different host distro, Fedora maybe, to see how pervasive the problem is. Anyhoo, I'll try to reproduce and figure out the problem when I get time, but it won't be for a while yet. 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
