On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Interesting!! So either GCC is not compiling Glibc with NPTL correctly, or
we have a GCC 4.0.1 issue.
Matt Darcy is trying the Currently GLIBC snapshot.
If the snapshot works well, we should seriously consider using that in the
We have had people test the GCC4 branch and it doesn't affect it, which
is kinda of strange.
To recreate the two issues we have seen, just do configure and make,
with glibc or binutils. Each issue is specific to the architecture that
what makes it harder to track down.
glibc - 32/64 on x86_6
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/08/05 14:06 CST:
> If the snapshot works well, we should seriously consider using that in
> the current gcc4 branch instead of the patches in place now.
To try and get a better understanding of the issues, can you tell me
what I need to look for to see if
Jim Gifford wrote:
Interesting!! So either GCC is not compiling Glibc with NPTL correctly,
or we have a GCC 4.0.1 issue.
Or, the current cross-lfs instructions need to be altered. As far as
I'm aware, following the gcc4 branch, noone has encountered any of the
issues yourself or Matt Darcy
Jim Gifford wrote:
Interesting!! So either GCC is not compiling Glibc with NPTL correctly,
or we have a GCC 4.0.1 issue.
Matt Darcy is trying the Currently GLIBC snapshot.
If the snapshot works well, we should seriously consider using that in
the current gcc4 branch instead of the patches
Now to add the twist to this tail. During testing I've personally seen
some wierd stuff with GCC 4.0.1, Glibc 2.3.5, and Binutils 2.16.1.
When I built an x86 to x86 system following the book exactly, I get to
binutils and I would get a Malformed Archive on all binutils static
libraries. Repeat
Matt Darcy wrote:
Hi all,
There appears to be a problem with the cross-build gcc4 project. From
dicussions on this it appears to be a compatability issue with gcc4
which displays its self on different platforms in different ways.
I have been working on the x86 to x86_64 multi-lib version of
