[lfs-support] 5.7 glibc sanity check question

Armin K. krejzi.lfs at email.com
Wed Jul 11 08:35:48 PDT 2018


On 11.7.2018. 17:28, Alan Corey wrote:
> OK, it fails.  And when I do
> readelf -l a.out
> and look at the output manually the interpreter line is just
> 
> [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1]
> 

This is adjusted in gcc pass 1. Current sed that fixes this is made for 
x86/x86_64, and does cover mentioned architecture. You'll need to adjust 
it yourself.

> No /tools in there.  How does it get there?  I configured glib with
> the little script
> #!/bin/bash
> ../configure --prefix=/tools --host=$LFS_TGT  \
>   --build=$(../scripts/config.guess) --enable-kernel=3.2 \
>   --with-headers=/tools/include libc_cv_forced_unwind=yes \
>   libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes
> 
> Built it all, it failed the sanity test and I was trying to figure out
> why.  I thought --prefix only changed where something was installed, I
> didn't know it got embedded.  Maybe this is like argv[0].  This is
> referencing ld-linux on the host, not the one in /tools.
> 
> And my /tools symlink is right, I think:
> up64$ ls -la / | grep tools
> lrwxrwxrwx   1 root root    14 Jul 10 08:17 tools -> /mnt/lfs/tools
> 
> I don't think this relects an error in this glibc, more like something before.
> 
> But wait a minute, my cfg script may run with a different environment.
> Don't think so though.
> 
> Tricks I've learned from a lot of unsuccessful builds in general: Put
> the configure stuff in a little script so you can edit and run again
> if needed.  Redirect the output of configure or make into a file and
> probably do a tail -f on that to watch.  I have the configure output.
> Running make over again.
> 



More information about the lfs-support mailing list