Broken Build (was Re: GCC flags)

James Iwanek chthon at
Wed May 14 05:05:39 PDT 2003

Greg Schafer wrote:

> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 12:01:25PM +0100, James Iwanek wrote:
> No. I meant exactly what I said. But now that I think about it, it doesn't
> matter what prefix a cross-compiler is installed into. I just re-read a
> couple of cross-compiling howto's and realised that the various mechanisms
> used, help to ensure the magic will work. It seems to me they CAN be
> installed into /usr no problem. (but I am not a cross-compiler expert so
> may be talking rubbish)

k, sorry - you confused me for a bit ;-)

> No, pls see above. The cross-compilers are not an issue. But upon
> reflection, it may actually be prudent to drop tooldir=/usr in Ch 6. I
> could envisage a situation where someone may accidentally overwrite their
> /usr/bin/as and /usr/bin/ld. In the "no tooldir=/usr" scenario, the
> original tools would still be available in /usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin
> (they're hardlinks remember) and thus gcc would still find them. Not only
> that, as gcc searches that directory before searching the PATH (and thus
> /usr/bin), compiles will be a teeny weeny bit faster (and I mean REALLY
> teeny weeny :-)

so you are for removal aswell then?

> Attached strace proves the point. The stat64 call directly before the one
> to "/opt/gnome1/bin/ld" is where ld would be found in the "no
> tooldir=/usr" scenario.
> I wonder what the distros do.

i havnt used i distro for a couple of years now ;-)

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

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list