Removal of removing fixincludes.
John Anthony Kazos Jr.
jkazos at vt.edu
Thu May 15 18:38:49 PDT 2003
Wait, wait, nevermind, ignore me, gah. I'm using the wrong blasted tarfile.
That'll teach me to be careful with tab completion...
But we do know at least that Debian hasn't fixed their headers (or at least
that one), so 3.3 will fail there too.
At 09:35 PM 5/15/03, you wrote:
>At 09:11 PM 5/15/03, you wrote:
>>On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:13:11PM -0400, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
>> > But the current Pure LFS hint says to apply the no_fixincludes patch the
>> > first time the builder is even supposed to touch the gcc package. I did so
>> > and just completed the bootstrap make step and there were no errors...
>> > continuing on when I send this message to test.) And I am indeed using the
>> > 2.2.5 version of glibc that's default for Debian GNU/Linux stable... What
>> > exactly is suppposed to fail?
>>I think you'll find Debian have already "fixed" their headers.
>>Check the contents of /usr/include/bits/sigthread.h
>>If it says:-
>>/* Send signal SIGNO to the given thread. */
>>extern int pthread_kill (pthread_t __thread, int __signo) __THROW;
>>then it hasn't been "fixed" and a gcc-3.3 build should fail. If the
>>"__thread" is something else then you know why the build worked.
>>gcc-3.3 now defines "__thread" as a compiler keyword.
>These are the last four lines of the file:
>/* Send signal SIGNO to the given thread. */
>extern int pthread_kill (pthread_t __thread, int __signo) __THROW;
>#endif /* bits/sigthread.h */
>Which implies it should have failed... Are you certain the
>--with-local-prefix directive did not avoid this file entirely? I haven't
>yet taken the time to understand the gcc build process, so I'm simply
>Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
>and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
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