Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-11-27 Thread Dan Nicholson
On Nov 26, 2007 10:53 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (dredging up an old thread) > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On 3/19/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> So, it seems this difference is embedded in cc1 and can't be stripped > >> out after the build. I'm assuming th

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-11-26 Thread Greg Schafer
(dredging up an old thread) Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 3/19/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> So, it seems this difference is embedded in cc1 and can't be stripped >> out after the build. I'm assuming that the original difference is just >> debugging symbols like would normally be

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-23 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 3/20/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Attached are two patches to add the glibc branch update patch in Ch. 5 > and force /usr/include to be used as the preferred system include > directory after the toolchain re-adjustment. No comments, so I'm applying these. -- Dan -- http://

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-20 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 3/20/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Attached are two patches to add the glibc branch update patch in Ch. 5 > and force /usr/include to be used as the preferred system include > directory after the toolchain re-adjustment. I should mention that I changed the specs adjustment to

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-20 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 3/19/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, it seems this difference is embedded in cc1 and can't be stripped out after the build. I'm assuming that the original difference is just debugging symbols like would normally be the case. I'll try to narrow that down further, but this may

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-19 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 3/14/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > One of the things that currently doesn't happen in the chroot > > toolchain adjustment for LFS is making gcc prefer the new headers in > > /usr/include. If you add '-v' to the sanity check output, you'll see > > that

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-15 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 16:43, Dan Nicholson wrote: > Manuel brought up a recent regression shown by ICA in cc1 and cc1plus. Dan, thanks for looking into this. It seems pretty clear that we need both fixes here, i.e. i) Apply the Glibc patch in chapter 5 and ii) Point GCC to the headers in

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-14 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 3/14/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > One of the things that currently doesn't happen in the chroot > > toolchain adjustment for LFS is making gcc prefer the new headers in > > /usr/include. If you add '-v' to the sanity check output, you'll see > > that

Re: ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-14 Thread Greg Schafer
Dan Nicholson wrote: > Manuel brought up a recent regression shown by ICA in cc1 and cc1plus. > Then I remembered one other thing Greg recently tweaked for more purity. > > http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2006-December/000967.html > > One of the things that currently doesn't

ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

2007-03-14 Thread Dan Nicholson
Manuel brought up a recent regression shown by ICA in cc1 and cc1plus. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-February/059037.html I did some investigation on this. I reproduced it running jhalfs, but it didn't show up in my own scripts. I've got a few DIY tweaks in there, so I starte