On 2/28/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 28 February 2007 04:44, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > For this case, it looks like there's a couple different ways we can > > attack this. But I think we agree that this is a good thing to do. > > Let's give Matthew and anyone else to chime in. > > I'd say go with the '-B' switch too. It's being used for its intended > purpose, and the 'non-executable ld' trick won't work as Bryan pointed out. > [0] suggests it'll work on gcc-2.95.3 hosts too, so we won't be introducing > any new host requirements either.
Greg pointed out that it doesn't work on gcc-2.95.3[0]. The reason is not because -B is supported. I don't have this to test, so I'll just pass on what Greg said. In gcc-2.95.3, if you pass -B and it's not needed for anything, it will issue a warning on stderr that says gcc: file path prefix `/usr/bin/' never used This is a problem because some of the feature tests in the gcc/binutils configures check for failed return status by checking whether there was any output to stderr. That's obviously dumb. I ran into this issue when I was trying to compile with CC="gcc -v" so I could get really verbose output during a bootstrap (-v sends its output to stderr). I believe the problem was in the libiberty/ subdirectory. I don't know if this is an still an issue in gcc-4.1.2 and binutils-2.17. Someone would have to check. DIY has support for the older versions, and I'm pretty sure I was messing around compiling gcc-3.4.6 at the time. -- Dan [0] http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2006-November/000946.html -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
