From the "some things need to stew and ferment before they come back to bite you" department:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 10:27:46PM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote: > > Apart from the > problem from running the module-init-tools testsuite (already fixed) > I found the following issues: > > 1. Glibc cannot be compiled with the branch_update-1 patch. This > was not a surprise to me, the only piece of code it alters is in > nptl/sysdeps/powerpc/tcb-offsets.sym and I already knew it broke > ppc64. In fact, that was why I wanted to look at ppc. I also > looked at a recent glibc snapshot before I started the build, and > couldn't see this change in it. > I've now found what was different between Jim's (?) builds and mine (I heard he needed the patch to build on ppc). It's the --enable-kernel parameter for glibc. The book has --enable-kernel=2.6.0, and with that the branch_update-1 patch stops it compiling, so I guess we should keep the cut-down 1A version of the patch for the 1.1.0 release. But, people using later values of --enable-kernel (specifically, 2.6.22+ on ppc and perhaps ppc64 - the kernel version which brought in private futexes) need the -1 version to compile glibc. I'm still have 'which --enable-kernel version?' on my list of things to look at, since the original discussion on lfs-dev in November, but I don't yet feel confident about identifying what it really does - probably, the responses I received then are correct, but I haven't fleshed out what sort of workarounds glibc invokes, nor why the thread arose (log messages about an old interface) if the workarounds are being used. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce _______________________________________________ Clfs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
