On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>
> >> 2) If we did use libtool to build gcc, then, yes, I would be concerned
> >>about the relinking issue.
> >
> > Why? Because of 'make install' run as root? Any other reasons?
>
> Any install process which is more
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:47:34PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > It is not so unlikely that multiple instances of cc1, cc1plus, and f951
> > are running simultaneously. Granted, I haven't done any measurements.
>
> Most projects are written in only one language. Sure, there may be
> cases w
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>> 2) If we did use libtool to build gcc, then, yes, I would be concerned
>>about the relinking issue.
>
> Why? Because of 'make install' run as root? Any other reasons?
Any install process which is more complex than cp is a matter for
concern. It should only be un
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 08:43:51PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> > OK. I won't argue my point further, but I am interested to learn why
> > shared libraries in nonstandard locations are seemingly frowned upon
> > here. Is that due to fragility of the libtool approach
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 06:56:27PM CEST:
>> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>> > Provide a configure switch --with-hardcoded-gccdeps that adds run path
>> > entries for pre-installed support libraries?
>>
>> I'm fine with that, but it just introduces an
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 06:56:27PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> > Provide a configure switch --with-hardcoded-gccdeps that adds run path
> > entries for pre-installed support libraries?
>
> I'm fine with that, but it just introduces another configure option for
> peop
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 03:07:46AM CEST:
>> Paul Koning writes:
>> > My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is
>> > the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it
>> > seems strange that configure
On Oct 13, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paul Koning writes:
>
>> My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is
>> the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it
>> seems strange that configure finds the prerequisites and then ends up
>
On 14 October 2010 02:07, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> Explicitly setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH seems to cure the problem. It would be
> good to have that called out in the procedures (or, preferably, made not to
> be necessary).
As Ian pointed out, it's documented under --with-mpc et al, although I
only a
Hello,
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 03:07:46AM CEST:
> Paul Koning writes:
> > My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is
> > the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it
> > seems strange that configure finds the prerequisites
Paul Koning writes:
> Explicitly setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH seems to cure the problem. It
> would be good to have that called out in the procedures (or,
> preferably, made not to be necessary).
It actually is in the install docs, though of course suggestions for
improvements are always welcome.
On Oct 13, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paul Koning writes:
>
>> My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is
>> the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it
>> seems strange that configure finds the prerequisites and then ends up
>
Paul Koning writes:
> My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is
> the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it
> seems strange that configure finds the prerequisites and then ends up
> generating makefiles that produce a compiler that can't find
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13/10/2010 22:34, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> On my Linux system (CentOS 5.5) I'm trying to do a bootstrap of the current
>> trunk. I have the dependencies (mpc, mfpr, gmp) installed.
>>
>> Did configure, no issues.
>>
>> Did "make bootstrap". S
On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13/10/2010 22:34, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> On my Linux system (CentOS 5.5) I'm trying to do a bootstrap of the current
>> trunk. I have the dependencies (mpc, mfpr, gmp) installed.
>>
>> Did configure, no issues.
>>
>> Did "make bootstrap". S
On 13/10/2010 22:34, Paul Koning wrote:
> On my Linux system (CentOS 5.5) I'm trying to do a bootstrap of the current
> trunk. I have the dependencies (mpc, mfpr, gmp) installed.
>
> Did configure, no issues.
>
> Did "make bootstrap". Stage 1 runs clean up to
> "configure-stage1-target-libgcc"
I've tried a couple of different things but it isn't working and this seems
like it should be simple...
On my Linux system (CentOS 5.5) I'm trying to do a bootstrap of the current
trunk. I have the dependencies (mpc, mfpr, gmp) installed.
Did configure, no issues.
Did "make bootstrap". Stage
17 matches
Mail list logo
