Greg Schafer wrote: > You're making the changes in *both* passes. Unnecessary hackery and you > know it. Stop blurring the truth.
I fail to see how I could blur the truth about something that is publicly available for all to read. Of course the changes are there in both passes, I never said otherwise. As far as it being unnecessary hackery is another matter. I certainly prefer editing macros in headers over reverting gcc to code that the devs explicitly removed. It's notable that when you continued to explain to them your build method/procedure the response was invariably 'use sysroot'. I suppose you'll next say that the devs didn't understand your intention or method even though you thoroughly explained yourself and they even took the trouble to walk through your ref build. For those unfamiliar see: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532 For those not interested in reading the entire bug history, the last comment by a dev was: "Using the sysroot flags is the solution for Greg's scenario. In fact I would say it makes his job easier." -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
