On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2015 14:34, Leno Hou wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On 21 Sep 2015 13:15, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > > > On 9/21/15 10:02 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > > > > On 09/21/2015 08:38 AM, Leno Hou wrote: > > > > >> + self.settings["CHOST"]="powerpc64le-linux-gnu" > > > > > > > > The CHOST is incorrect. It should powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. > Leno, > > > > can you please try to switch it to that and do another catalyst run. > > > > You can begin with your current stage3 with the above CHOST and it > > > > should work out correctly to the new CHOST name. In another place > you > > > > said there is no compiler "powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu" but that > makes > > > > no sense. The tuple is parsed by gnuconfig script and it should work > > > > like all other CHOST names we have in gentoo. > > > > > > powerpc64le-linux-gnu is a valid tuple (vendor can generally be > omitted), > > > but in Gentoo we do use "unknown" for our ppc ports. so do as Anthony > > > says ;). > > > -mike > > > > > > > When set CHOST="powerpc64le-linux-gnu", successfully compiled stage1. > > But CHOST="powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu", something happens as following. > > https://bpaste.net/show/189b2b12d8e2 > > > > So I think CHOST="powerpc64le-linux-gnu" would be better. > > i think you're misreading things. we didn't say > "powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu", > we said "powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu". > -mike > I've tested CHOST="powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu" and proved you're right. The results is that got compiler called "powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu-*" in stage 1. So could you help me to commit PATCH v2 ? thanks. -Leno Hou
