Tobias Gasser wrote: > i can't find any XCFLAGS in the gcc/Makefile.in Looking at "svn blame", and tracking back through the state of the book at various svn revisions, that sed was committed when we still used gcc-4.3.2. Wouldn't surprise me if they changed the way this was specified now.
Ah, it was removed in gcc commit 133832, when something that's seemingly totally unrelated was being fixed (related to building gcc and binutils in the same tree). I can't see any good reason why it was yanked at that point, though I'm not terribly familiar with the gcc build system. Are we generating different binaries now, in gcc pass1 and pass2? If so, then do any of the toolchain people around here have an opinion on changing CFLAGS or TCFLAGS instead of the now-removed XCFLAGS? (I suspect TCFLAGS is the wrong variable, though.) > * * PART2 > the testsuite complains about 'getline' > same error, thus same fix as with binutils: > sed -i -e 's/getline/get_line/' libiberty/testsuite/test-demangle.c > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/development/test-logs/074-gcc > confirms my test. > > as i dont know how to report it upstream, could anybody do this report > or tell me how i could to it? There's a gcc-bugs list, and a Bugzilla instance running. I suspect they've already been notified, but it wouldn't hurt to look... Yep: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39752 The question is whether any of the gcc devs will fix it. Doesn't look like there's a lot of activity on that bug. Upstream SVN hasn't been fixed either yet... OTOH, we don't care nearly so much here, since we suppress the libiberty installation anyway.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
