changing cpp links

Clay Mitchell clay at pfd.net
Fri Mar 23 15:50:43 PST 2001


i had some problems with stuff looking for cpp in /lib, so i linked it to
/usr/bin/cpp and those problems went magically away.

-----Original Message-----
From: lfs-discuss-owner at linuxfromscratch.org
[mailto:lfs-discuss-owner at linuxfromscratch.org]On Behalf Of Neven Has
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 5:53 PM
To: lfs-discuss at linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: changing cpp links


On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:34:36PM +0100, didbaba wrote:
> So my question :
> Is there a difference beetween the cpp binary who live in /usr/bin, and
the
> cpp library who live in /usr/lib/gcc-lib...

They are both executable binaries actually.

The one in gcc-lib is _internal_, and it's called by gcc to do the
preprocessing.

The one in bin is a _driver_binary_, like gcc. If you want to do some
preprocessing separately, you would call that one.

> Why do they change from cpp to cpp0, to distinguish ?

Yes. The issue was apparently causing some confusion.

Which brings me to the subject :

It seems that it's recommended that links in /lib/cpp and /usr/lib/cpp point
to cpp driver, the one in /usr/bin, and not that internal binary.
They both work, but doing some searching, I found a few messages from gcc
developers in which they suggest this.

When you think about it, it does seem logical -- gcc-lib/*/cpp, being
the internal binary, to be used only by gcc.

Also, that would explain renaming to cpp0 even more -- forcing the use
of /usr/bin/cpp. If we used that file (for our links) from the start, we
wouldn't have any problems.

Maybe we should change those links ?

Neven



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



-- 
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