On 8/14/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the absence of any other error messages, it looks as if the tests above are causing the 'executable and writable' message to be followed by return 1. This I do not understand. If I compile with -m32, __powerpc__ is defined and __powerpcc64__ is not defined. (with -m64, both are defined). The included config.h for 32-bit has #undef HAVE_PPC_SECURE_PLT -commented- with a note that it is needed if the compiler defaults to -msecure-plt. Other than that, there are no references to HAVE_PPC_SECURE_PLT and it doesn't seem to be defined when I compile. So, I read the tests in 32bit as: ! __sparc__ && ! __alpha__ : ok so far && (! __powerpc__ || __powerpc64__ || HAVE_PPC_SECURE_PLT ) : all false which would work happily.
Seems like it shouldn't fail as long as config.h has #undef HAVE_PPC_SECURE_PLT. You say that this is commented in config.h? I'm confused. Anyway, here's the relevant patch from earlier this year. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2006-03/msg00016.html If you're really curious, maybe you could put a couple extra printf's in there to see what's going on. -- Dan _______________________________________________ Clfs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cross-lfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfs-dev
