cvs-200107023 ch5 gcc instructions

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Wed Jul 25 18:36:23 PDT 2001

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 08:37:23PM -0500, Steve Jones wrote:
> My partly bad.  It's chapter 6.

It's not needed in chapter 6. The reason is provided in the "Command
Explanations" section in chapter 5's gcc:

patch -Np1 -i ../gcc-3.0.patch: This patch changes all instances of
re_max_failures to re_max_failures2. re_max_failures is a variable used
within Glibc and with static compiling this variable sometimes clashes
between the package's re_max_failures and the same variable in glibc. By
renaming re_max_failures in the package to re_max_failures2 we just tell
the package to use the second variable so that glibc won't be in the

The explanation can be a bit clearer I agree, but the gist is that the
patch is needed only to fix a static link problem. In chapter 6 we don't
link gcc statically, no no need for the patch.

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list