On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 20:18 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: > On 04/16/2011 02:03 PM, Joe Ciccone wrote: > > I just reviewed this patch. I agree there is an issue, but this patch > > does not appear to be a good solution. It may run the checks that need > > to run, but it also caused the value of CC to be defaulted. It dropped > > some additional parameters I had set. I am going to look for an > > alternative solution. Reading through that email thread, it looks like > > setting EGREP=egrep is enough. > > > > Thanks for bringing the issue up. > Sure sure. Just out of curiosity, what was dropped? Also, it seems to me > that I had lost something else had changed without running the whole > script. Maybe another mistak, but I can't see why I would have used the > patch if setting EGREP would have worked for me. I am a far cry from > either CLFS or LFS, so a simple CC="gcc -m32" with the patch worked as > expected in my case.
Interesting, I tried both CC="gcc -m32" and CC="gcc -m64" and in both cases I ended up with CC="gcc -std=c99" in config.log. Very strange. For what its worth, I did not have an issue compiling MPC w/ or w/o this patch or setting EGREP on the CLI. I set EGREP just to be on the safe side. I will admit that my test environment so far is very small. Just multilib x86_64. More builds to come in the future. -- Joe Ciccone _______________________________________________ Clfs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
