Happy testing - gcc-3.2 and other commited

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Wed Sep 11 18:54:34 PDT 2002

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:44:08PM -0400, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On August 27, 2002 06:35 am, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > This is even more important now that we are using --enable-__cxa_atexit
> >
> > No time to go into great detail right now but I will happily do so if
> > you need further clarification. In fact, I will anyway, as it really needs
> > to be on the record somewhere.
> >
> > But in the meanwhile, I urge you to revert the change.
> Seems I was too quick with that. I tested an install, saw my chapter 5 gcc did 
> find the .hidden support as it should and all was well. I thought it was a 
> gcc only problem, and since gcc-3.1 detected binutils properly I didn't think 
> that patch was necessary. 
> Just to reiterate: you're saying that even if you use gcc-3.1, the bug will 
> still show up if the host system's binutils isn't sufficiently new enough? If 


> that's the case, can't we fix this even easier by running this:
> 	PATH=$LFS/static/bin:$PATH ./configure \
> 		./gcc-3.2/configure --prefix=/static <and the rest here>
> That would make GCC find the just compiled binutils from chapter 5 first, 
> which is a new enough version, which then in turn should result in a properly 
> compiled gcc and later on glibc?

Heh Gerard!

Mark H actually suggested this way back:-


It doesn't seem to work though :( I looked into it at the time and concluded
that the gcc configure script wasn't checking the path even though comments within
the script indicated it was!

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

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list