Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> echo "CFLAGS += -march=i686" > configparms
> Everything went smoothly, so unless anyone has any objections, this is
> the method I'll be dropping in, except using i486, of course. I won't
> commit for the next hour or so, however, so that will give at least some
> ti
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:00:30 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> M.Canales.es wrote:
Don't should that references be left-out until x86_64 support merge?
>>> If it happens to be me that applies these patches this wee
#2055: Sysklogd-1.5
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal|
#2068: New upstream Readline fixes
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal
#2061: Man-pages-2.64
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal|
#2070: Linux-2.6.22.6
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal|
#2018: Glibc-2.6.1
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal|
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Ughh, gotta say the above is horrid IMHO. I realize you're trying to get
> rid of the specs patch.. but at the expense of your target audience? This
> is a critical part of the build method and you've just *massively*
> increased the chances of screwups IMNSHO.
Which is it? A
> Author: jhuntwork
> Date: 2007-09-15 14:45:13 -0600 (Sat, 15 Sep 2007)
> New Revision: 8374
> +for file in $(find gcc/config -name linux64.h -o -name
> linux.h)
> +do
> + cp -uv $file{,.orig}
> + sed -e 's@/lib\(64\)\?\(32\)\?/ld@/tools&@g' \
> + -e 's@/usr@/[EMAIL PROTECTED]' $file.orig > $
#2074: Texinfo-4.11
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: normal|
#2074: Texinfo-4.11
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: normal|
#2074: Texinfo-4.11
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: normal| Mi
Robert Connolly wrote:
> The 'configparms' file can exist before or after ./configure is run, in the
> build directory. I'm not sure which was looks better in the LFS book.
I just tried this, and I used it before configure, though as you say, it
shouldn't make much of a difference since it's pro
The 'configparms' file can exist before or after ./configure is run, in the
build directory. I'm not sure which was looks better in the LFS book.
robert
pgpI6nWm3zIdy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:51:03 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
>> Instead of an Sed command. The 'configparms' file is lightly documented in
>> the 'INSTALL' file, and is the suggested way to override Makefile parameters.
>> This is a powerfull way to have v
Robert Connolly wrote:
> This should also work:
> ./configure...
> echo "CFLAGS += -march=i486" > configparms
> make
>
> Instead of an Sed command. The 'configparms' file is lightly documented in
> the 'INSTALL' file, and is the suggested way to override Makefile parameters.
> This is a powerful
This should also work:
./configure...
echo "CFLAGS += -march=i486" > configparms
make
Instead of an Sed command. The 'configparms' file is lightly documented in
the 'INSTALL' file, and is the suggested way to override Makefile parameters.
This is a powerfull way to have very fine grained control
#2002: gcc-4.2.1
---+
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement| Status: closed
Priority: normal |
#2051: Berkeley-DB 4.6.19
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal
#2069: Binutils-2.18
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal|
#2067: New upstream bash fixes
--+-
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: normal
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> This is a minor thing and I'll work with whatever is felt is best,
>> but I thought it might help open up discussion if the items in Trac
>> were more visible to all interested in LFS developm
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Thanks for the research. I can see why you did it this way, because of
> the way CFLAGS changes through the configure script. We could also do:
>
> 's/-O2/& -march=i486/'
Well I used this sed, except I changed 486 to 686, and everything built
successfully. Checking the
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that the default CFLAGS are set during the AC_PROG_CC
> autoconf macro. So, we could either add our own customized macro and
> rebuild the autotools, or just hack the already generated configure
> script. This seems to work (I just did a successful build):
>
On 9/15/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/15/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I suppose it might be possible to introduce the -march flag to CFLAGS
> > without specifying the whole of CFLAGS on the command line... I'll take
> > a look.
>
> For LFS, I think it
On 9/15/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suppose it might be possible to introduce the -march flag to CFLAGS
> without specifying the whole of CFLAGS on the command line... I'll take
> a look.
For LFS, I think it would be better if we just `sed' the -march into
the appropriate
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:00:30 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> M.Canales.es wrote:
>>> Don't should that references be left-out until x86_64 support merge?
>>>
>> If it happens to be me that applies these patches this weekend, I'll
>> strip that stuff out
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:16:56 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So, to summarize, I propose not using --with-arch, but use the following
>> for Glibc:
>>
>> CFLAGS="-march=i486 -O2 -pipe" ../glibc-2.6.1/configure ...etc.
>>
>> Glibc requires some sort
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:16:56 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, to summarize, I propose not using --with-arch, but use the following
> for Glibc:
>
> CFLAGS="-march=i486 -O2 -pipe" ../glibc-2.6.1/configure ...etc.
>
> Glibc requires some sort of optimization and -O2 seems s
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:00:30 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> M.Canales.es wrote:
>> Don't should that references be left-out until x86_64 support merge?
>>
>
> If it happens to be me that applies these patches this weekend, I'll
> strip that stuff out, too.
Jeremy, would you m
30 matches
Mail list logo
