[lfs-dev] gcc --with-glibc-version

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 20:41:42 PDT 2015


Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> In your case though, you would only need to change to
>> --with-glibc-version=2.10, but I am guessing it would work with 2.11
>> anyway.
>
> Yeah, I misunderstood the effect of the configure option (in part because of
> the changes being discussed, to set the minimum *host* glibc requirement).  I
> thought it worked like glibc's --enable-kernel=xxx flag, in that the resulting
> gcc would only work if the libc that *it* linked to (in its main gcc binary)
> was at least the specified version.  (Like libc.so abort()s at startup if the
> kernel version isn't at least whatever glibc was configured for.)  I figured
> it would do something with symbol versioning or whatever to accomplish this.
>
> Instead, according to:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00619.html
>
> the configure flag seems to be the minimum that the compiler will *target*,
> i.e. it will only affect the compiler's output, not the compiler binary's
> running, and actually only affects configure-time checks in the gcc build.
>
> So I'm fine with that.  --with-glibc-version=2.11 should indeed work on my
> system.  And I actually think changing the minimum host glibc back to whatever
> it was (2.5.something?) might be a good idea, to avoid incorrect assumptions
> in the future?  But up to you I suppose.

I'm going to leave it at 2.11 for now.  A 5 year old package should be enough. 
Users always have the option of using a livecd with more recent package versions.

I'll reconsider if we start getting users with issues due to the change.

   -- Bruce




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list