Dan Nicholson wrote:
> In the adjustment, though, he uses `gcc -dumpmachine`, though. This
> is probably wise since you don't know what MACHTYPE is from the
> host's bash. In fact, this might be a good idea for both
> adjustments. I don't know how reliable MACHTYPE is, but I'm
> speculating sin
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> In the adjustment, though, he uses `gcc -dumpmachine`, though. This
> is probably wise since you don't know what MACHTYPE is from the host's
> bash. In fact, this might be a good idea for both adjustments. I
> don't know how reliable MACHTYPE is, but I'm speculating since
On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> > +mv -v /tools/bin/{ld,ld-old}
> > +mv -v /tools/$MACHTYPE/bin/{ld,ld-old}
> > +mv -v /tools/bin{ld-new,ld}
> > +ln -v /tools/bin/ld /tools/$MACHTYPE/bin/ld
>
> Any reason why something similar can't be done for th
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> +mv -v /tools/bin/{ld,ld-old}
> +mv -v /tools/$MACHTYPE/bin/{ld,ld-old}
> +mv -v /tools/bin{ld-new,ld}
> +ln -v /tools/bin/ld /tools/$MACHTYPE/bin/ld
Any reason why something similar can't be done for the first pass of
binutils? I forgot about that one.
--
JH
--
http://
Ryan Oliver wrote:
> When you are doing an old style cross-toolchain build
Nobody sane uses old style cross-toolchain build procedures these days :-)
> (ie: not using a sysroot, all target libraries and includes installed
> under /prefix/target/lib /prefix/target/lib64
> /prefix/target/{include
On 1/28/06, Ryan Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 14:36 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > Um, the decision might be made for us:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00507.html
>
> Yup, and its still there 1 year later.
Oops, sorry. I thought that post w
Ryan Oliver wrote:
G'day Ryan, good to see you alive and kicking on the list :-)
Unfortunately, all you've done is told us why you don't like -B. You
haven't addressed the core issue of this thread ie: startfile_prefix_spec.
We'd all appreciate it if you could address the concerns that I've rai
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Personally, I don't believe in it and will never use it because:
>
> - the spec is faulty. It doesn't work when placed into an external file
>for use by "gcc -specs=..." (luckily LFS is not using it externally).
>Every other spec I've tried works properly when place
Ryan Oliver wrote:
[snip]
> Which method do you want to use to link in the correct startfiles
> 1: misuse the -B flag, overriding GCC_EXEC_PREFIX and setting isystem et
> al
> 2: set the location of the startfiles in the spec provided just for this
> purpose.
Thank you Ryan. When I asked you sev
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 14:36 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19353
> >
> > Our longtime Toolchain Maintainer, Ryan Oliver, still prefers to use
> > this method.
>
> Um, the decision might be mad
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 08:32 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ever looked at a build log of GCC itself? Guess what? -B.
>
> /tools/src/build/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -B/tools/src/build/gcc-build/gcc/
> -B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/i686-pc-linux
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 13:07 +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> > Isn't using -B to find libraries an abuse as well?
>
> Huh? Using a documented switch for a documented purpose?
> RTFM :-)
>
The purpose of the -B flag is to override GCC_EXEC_PREFIX, the path the
gcc driver u
On 1/27/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19353
>
> Our longtime Toolchain Maintainer, Ryan Oliver, still prefers to use
> this method.
Um, the decision might be made for us:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00507.html
Spec
On 1/27/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ever looked at a build log of GCC itself? Guess what? -B.
/tools/src/build/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -B/tools/src/build/gcc-build/gcc/
-B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ ...
Seems gcc thinks it's OK to search for libraries wi
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> In the interests of getting this issue off your/our plates I'd say we
> choose whatever method is most suited to LFS as it is now. That is,
> whichever works on x86 native compilations and is officially
> supported/documented upstream. Yes, I understand people's desires t
Greg Schafer wrote:
IMHO multilib is quite complicated. I cannot say anything authoritative
about it because I personally haven't had a need for it and therefore
haven't researched or tested it. That'll change if someone sends me an
AMD64 box :-)
Get a free (but slow) x86_64 box either from h
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Obviously '-B' works for you, and obviously, Ryan's methods work for
him. Is there a 'best for LFS' in all of that?
In the interests of getting this issue off your/our plates I'd say we
choose whatever method is most suited to LFS as it is now. That is,
whichever work
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Obviously '-B' works for you, and obviously, Ryan's methods work for
> him. Is there a 'best for LFS' in all of that?
When in doubt, play the multilib card! :-)
But seriously, I dunno. I fail to see how you can equate the 2. Comparing
cross compilation to native compilat
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't using -B to find libraries an abuse as well?
>
>
> Huh? Using a documented switch for a documented purpose?
> RTFM :-)
:/ I have read the man pages on gcc. I was asking for a bit more, if you
have it. The problem comes in the form that w
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Isn't using -B to find libraries an abuse as well?
Huh? Using a documented switch for a documented purpose?
RTFM :-)
Regards
Greg
--
http://www.diy-linux.org/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Not exactly. That bug report is about startfile_prefix_spec being a faulty
> spec. It coincidentally highlighted the fact that GCC devs want it removed.
Yes, you're right. I didn't word it correctly. Anway, the point is made.
> It's there in the current stable book and doin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> There is a bug open to remove this feature from gcc. But, it is a year
> old now and still open.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19353
Not exactly. That bug report is about startfile_prefix_spec being a faulty
spec. It coincidentally highlighted the fact
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hello Everyone
As I mentioned in another thread, my intention is to re-add this method
into the LFS book.
Jeremy, this is primarily so as you know I've read your email! I'm far
too ignorant about the toolchain to possibly comment on the suitability
or otherwise of you
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Couple of typos in the attached patch. Just letting you know that I've
noticed them, will fix them, and will also render/validate these changes
before I commit. I've made several careless mistakes recently, and I'm
going to be putting much more care into my work in the futur
24 matches
Mail list logo