Ken Moffat wrote:
> I still haven't built a recent LFS system, but I'm about to
> restart (x86_64), and I'm checking my scripts match the
> current development book, and working out what the
> presence of the {,/usr}/lib64 symlinks from 6.5 will do to my
> BLFS scripts (for the moment, I'm not sure if I like these
> symlinks but they certainly save patching gcc for pure64
> (spent some time yesterday trying to bootstrap 4.4.x on a
> clfs host before I eventually twigged what was wrong).jhalfs builds LFS x86_64 cleanly for me. Why reinvent that? > We have an inconsistency in what we tell people to do on > x86_64. > > In 5.10 the explanation applies to 'x86' machines (which is > true), but the sed is applied unconditionally. On x86_64 a > bootstrap uses -fno-omit-frame-pointer within > CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS and *never* uses -fomit-frame-pointer > so the build is now different (FWIW, CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS > come at the end of the command lines where they are used so > crtbegin.o and friends are unaffected, but in general the > build is different (e.g. libgcc.so.1 _muldi3.so, and so > forth). > > In 6.15 the sed is correctly wrapped in a case statement, but > the text just says >> As in Section 5.10, “GCC-4.4.2 - Pass 2”, apply the following >> sed to force the build to use the -fomit-frame-pointer >> compiler flag in order to ensure consistent compiler builds: > > So, the sed in 5.10 should be wrapped in a similar case > statement. I think we could alter the 6.15 text to > ... Pass 2", for x86 machines apply the following ... I'm having a problem understanding the issue you have. If x86_64 doesn't use the T_CFLAGS that's applied, why does it make a difference? Are you just concerned about the explanation? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
