gcc patch vs install-no-fixedincludes

Zack Winkles winkie093 at bellsouth.net
Mon Feb 10 12:16:02 PST 2003

over the past few days i've run into quite a few discrepencies with the
make target 'install-no-fixedincludes'. the most obvious to the naked
eye is the (useless) rebuilding of libgcc_s.so. this is totally
unnecessary and not present with the use of the patch. also, for some
screwed up reason, gcc refuses to install the c++ headers without the
patch. another little nitpick is this: even though we don't (shouldn't)
run fixincl.sh ANYWHERE in the makefile, we still end up with the
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/*/*/include/fixed file, totally empty, doing absolutely
nothing, and misleading anybody who cares to look at it. all of these
issues are not present with the use of the patch. anybody else care to
second me? anybody care to tell me i'm being a dumbass? let me know.
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