Drool... WAS --> Re: Autoconf Version 2.14.1

Barry barry at hartford.uconn.edu
Sat Jan 6 08:34:11 PST 2001

Gerard Beekmans wrote:

> The problems compiling stuff on RedHat7 was due to the compiler used,
> not the 2.2 glibc they had (well at the time glibc-2.2 wasn't stable
> yet, but that has chagned in the mean time).

I'd agree with that, however I switched to kgcc and removed gcc ... the
library was an egcs 2.91.66 private lib...

It still tripped over it... but perhaps this has more to do with Red
Hat's implimentation of glibc than it does the stable glibc itself :)

> > Has anyone had success building a clean gcc-2.95.2 source tree without
> > patching it?
> > How about Fileutils?
> GCC 2.95.2 needs a small patch that changes a struct somewhere. That
> patch will make gcc compile against glibc-2.2 just fine.
> The fileutils patch is a minor one. All it does is remove line 40 from
> dircolors.c (char *strndup();)
> This is just a change in the C Library standard, that was already
> implemented in 2.1.3. gcc-2.95.2 doesn't seem to catch this under
> glibc-2.1.3, but gcc- does catch it under glibc-2.1.3 (and
> gcc-2.95.2 does catch it under glibc-2.2 again).

Oh, I know that the patch for fileutils was small.. and thanks for the
background... :)

but it was still an unwanted surprise :)

the gcc patch I got from gnu is a lot larger than just one struct...then
again, it failed in a number of places as well and still compiled :)...
perhaps something changed because the patch was pre-2.2 release...

> > I mean, the fileutils problem was fairly major...on my system, ls didn't
> > print to standard output... Now, perhaps that was the only problem and
> It wasn't the patch that fixed it (not the one-liner patch I have here).
> No idea what that was all about.

probably had something to do with the dir colors issue.  It may have
been printing to stdio, but just in black :)

> > I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't mind patching and fixing things at
> > all, but these base level programs are a little bit too important to
> > have obscure gotcha's hanging around in....
> Like previously said, the problem wiht fileutils was already present,
> just the compiler didn't tell us about it with glibc-2.1.3 as it should
> have (gcc bug perhaps).

that's good to know :)... I didn't know the background... thank you...

> > Perhaps the answer is to give an option for installing glibc-2.2 in the
> > book... Perhaps that's a horrible idea from a support standpoint... but
> > maybe it's the only way to please everyone...
> Like I said in my other email I will wait with official book updates. If
> you want to go glibc-2.2 with gcc-2.95.2 you can get the book from CVS
> as soon as I have put it in there.

cool... in either case, testing it is good...

now, this is the type of thing I've wanted to hear... that testing of
the glibc has proven better results than otherwise... thanks :)

Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list