On 5/9/12 4:29 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 16:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> I'll dig a bit and get back to you.
>
> Note that I'm busy digging too. Having fixincludes run in chapter 5
> looks safe; GCC only searches for headers under /mnt/lfs/tools/include
> or /tools/i
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 16:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I'll dig a bit and get back to you.
Note that I'm busy digging too. Having fixincludes run in chapter 5
looks safe; GCC only searches for headers under /mnt/lfs/tools/include
or /tools/include.
I'll have results for chapter 6 tomorrow,
On 5/8/12 2:54 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
>> If so, then all that section about fixincludes can be dropped from pass 2.
>
> Are we only talking about changing pass 2 here? We also have a sed in
> the final build of GCC in chapter 6 with the following explanatory text:
>
> "The fixincludes script is k
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:00 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/7/12 7:04 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > There's a comment in linux/a.out.h that it fixed
> > up /tools/include/a.out.h so that looks OK. syslimits.h just includes
> > limits.sh, so that looks fine too. limits.h has been fixed but ther
On 5/7/12 7:04 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> There's a comment in linux/a.out.h that it fixed
> up /tools/include/a.out.h so that looks OK. syslimits.h just includes
> limits.sh, so that looks fine too. limits.h has been fixed but there's
> no indication of which limits.h was used as input to it. I
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 10:35 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On May 5, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Jeremy Huntwork
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Looks like I missed some necessary text changes.
> >
>
> There's also this statement made regarding the fixincludes script in
> GCC pass 2: "In fact, running this sc
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 10:35 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Anyone willing to poke a bit there and see if touching this
> fixincludes script is still necessary?
Sure, I'll take a look once my latest build completes.
> Also, very minor, but there's an extra space at the top of binutils
> pass
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 10:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Looks like I missed some necessary text changes. At the bottom of
> chapter 5 glibc, in the sanity check box, the following sentences are
> no longer accurate and can be removed:
>
> "Something may have gone wrong with the specs file amen
On May 5, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <
jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com> wrote:
Looks like I missed some necessary text changes.
There's also this statement made regarding the fixincludes script in GCC
pass 2: "In fact, running this script may actually pollute the build
environment by i
Looks like I missed some necessary text changes. At the bottom of
chapter 5 glibc, in the sanity check box, the following sentences are
no longer accurate and can be removed:
"Something may have gone wrong with the specs file amendment above. In
this case, redo the specs file amendment, being care
10 matches
Mail list logo
